Crash Bandicoot and the disgrace of the Demo

You had to corrupt something so pure with your greed!

I'm probably not going to win any friends with this blog but I don't currently care because I want to talk about something which really rubbed the wrong way recently, it really ground my gears. That being some of the marketing surrounding the brand new impending Crash Bandicoot game 'It's about Time'. (Still a cute name though.) Or more specifically, I'm upset about something the team did in their attempts to 'celebrate' this title, and that's why I'm particularly aggrieved. Although it has been a good long time since the last time Crash made it to the gaming world with all new content, the developers seem eager to invoke memories of those days of yore with a similar gameplay style, themed 90's outfits for the characters, and even that most antiquated of gaming relics; A demo.

Now it has been a good decade too long since Demo's existed, so maybe a little refresher is in order for everyone. (It was definitely needed for the team behind this little idea.) The concept of a demo was first popularised through the demo-disk program that used to run when gaming magazines were still popular. Developers used to stick vertical slices of their upcoming games onto discs in order for players to get a glimpse of several titles and decide which one would be worth their time come launch day. It was actually a hugely sought after marketing tool for developers at the time for there was no real way for game marketing to reach the sorts of demographics that it does in today's day and age. This practice sort of continued into the digital age with online downloadable demos, but the practise was slowly being weeded out and now in 2020 it's a rare treat to spot a game with a demo.

The point of these demos, however, the thing which really made them so great from a consumer's perspective, is that they allowed the player to really get an idea of if they wanted to spend the money for a game beforehand. In some cases, such as for PC demos, they also allowed for folk to see if their computer would run the thing. (Although I suppose in the modern age that's something you should really know just from checking the specs list. No real excuse at this stage of tech development.) It was a tool to help cut back on buyer's remorse and build upon the hype train in the exact same breath. Many fondly recall how big game's would have their demo disks be sought after, such as for the Metal Gear Solid 2 demo which contained a portion of the tanker level. All for the low, low price of absolutely free. So with that amount of foreshadowing I bet you can guess what Activision did to sully this tradition.

'Buy into the influx of hype and excitement for Crash Bandicoot 4 and jump into the demo; only available for those that secure a digital preorder of the game' Wait, what? I think someone's missing the entire point, don't you? Firstly, preorder bonuses are not really a practice I'm the biggest fan of, with the exception of when they come with physical goodies because I still have my hemp Skyrim map on my wall as I write this. Secondly, what exactly purpose does the demo serve when it's given only to people who have already bought the game? A concept that was designed to make people want to buy the game, offered as a reward for buying the game... what sort of ass-backwards logic is that? It's as though I just sold you a car and as a bonus gave you a coupon for the exact car you just bought. Sure you could buy the car again, if you're an idiot, but more likely than not it'll just end up confusing you and getting thrown away.

See, I've been trying to figure out the big master plan behind this idea and I just can't crack it, it's like the Great Chinese firewall to me, impenetrable. (That's why they call it Ba Sing Se) Maybe, and I'm literally grasping at straws here, they intended it to be a sort of 'buddy pass' system wherein you buy the game then bring over a buddy and make them play it in order to sell the title to them, but that makes absolutely no sense as a promotional tool because, oh I don't know, maybe the global pandemic which makes it practically illegal to make social calls with friends? And even if that weren't the case this would still be a weak sauce excuse, no one plays games together in person anymore, what is this: 2005? And yeah, the dumb idea was mine, but you explain the logic behind this nonsense then! Not so easy, is it?

And yes I do know what the excuse for this is, I can see it already. "No, this isn't an actual demo of any sorts, this is really just a nostalgic gimmick to remind people of times when demos were a thing, it's cute, see!" But from where I'm sitting that just amplifies how far the practice has fallen in recent years. With the growth of marketing and advertising budgets to frankly insane degrees, AAA games have absolutely no incentive to spend development time slicing out a vertical slice of their game unless it's for some highly publicised event like E3. The return on investment just wasn't good or consistent enough for this practice to continue into the modern age and nowadays the only titles which ever dabble are indie games that do need to make their case on a game-by-game basis. But for Crash Bandicoot, this is just a whacky zany callback to yesteryear.

For that is what ultimately incenses the most about this whole affair: the way it's creators are trivialising and gimmick-ifying the demo. Because I miss demos! I miss getting to play a whole bunch of games until I found that one which really caught my attention, I miss being provided with the level of information I need to make the most informed consumer choice and I miss a time when the practice was taken seriously. And if you don't think that Demos are considered a joke in today's world, just look at the purveyors of all consumer-positive practises: CDPR. They've never even so much as considered a demo for their games and they put their toes in anything that will generate enough good press or buzz, so demos must be the absolute pits of feedback or an industry joke to not even cross their desk.

Now at the end of the day this all doesn't mean a great deal for Crash Bandicoot. This latest title wasn't founded on the strength of it's ideas but off the success of the N'sane trilogy, meaning that the producers dipped their toes in the project at a time when they absolutely knew it had an audience and would sell well, they didn't need to win anyone over with nonsense like incentives and free swings at the gameplay. I don't even think my opinion on their little marketing callback has shifted my view on the overall title, it's just left a badtaste in my mouth and made me want to go on a rant, which I did right now in this blog. Because whilst you might be shaking your head and wondering "Who cares?", I do, kinda.

Far Cry 5: Review

We'll meet again, don't know where don't know when.

What is it with Ubisoft games, huh? I keep playing them, mocking them for the same shortcomings as last time, and than discarding them at the end of the day in disgust of ever having played them in the first place. Why oh why, did I ever buy into Far Cry 5? Well, the answer actually comes from a third-party exchange that I shared with my grandfather. (Whom I've only ever met 4 or 5 times in my life due to his general disinterest as far as his grandchildren are concerned.) You see, the man's an artist and a bit of a gamer, (he is the grandfather who oversaw me first playing Metal Gear Solid, if you've read my bio) and somehow through my brother I heard about him praising the Far Cry franchise. "Yeah" I thought, "You know the stories and characters may be lacking but that Far Cry 4 was beautiful at times, I can see where he's coming from." Only for the other shoe to drop and my older brother to tell that it was Far Cry 5 he was so enamoured with. At that point my course was set, I'd sworn off of Ubisoft games but if this was the kind of game that won over my Grandfather than I guess I don't really have a choice, now did I? For a man I hardly knew it might behove me to at least see his taste in modern games. (As his classic games taste in on-point, obviously.) And what was my ultimate conclusion? Eh, Grandad could do better.

Far Cry 5 is the Seventh entry in the long-running Far Cry franchise (including Far Cry Primal and Blood Dragon), but the fifth since Ubisoft entered this weird temporal loop of making and updating upon the same games and concepts forever. Far Cry has been lucky enough not to be struck with Assassin's Creeds lamentable 'one every year or two' launch cycle, (A cycle which has effectively assassinated any potential that series' storytelling ever had) but the games are still regular enough for the teams not to have enough time to reinvent the core gameplay. Ever since Far Cry 3 set in stone the foundations of running around clearing outposts, hunting animals, and doing the odd mission to spit in the face of some iconically crazy villain, that has been the identity of Far Cry, which is a shame because the games weren't always like that.

The original Far Cry isn't a game I've every played so I can't really talk about that, (Whenever I try to think back on it all my mind manages to conjure is the thought "Wow, Crysis doesn't really hold up like I thought it did.") but Far Cry 2 was on another level entirely. Built to occupy that vastly underexplored space in shooting, hardcore FPS', Far Cry 2 was a gruelling experience that told the tale of a mercenary in the middle of a struggle between African Warlords, all in the pursuit of a mysterious American Armsdealer called the Jackal who was playing both sides. As soon as you land you manage to catch Malaria and get spotted by your mark in the space of 10 minutes, making the goings forward very difficult from here on in. What follows is a series of back-and-forth loyalty switches as you follow the Jackals two-timing footsteps in hopes of finding more information about him, you amass a network of fellow foreign Mercs to your cause, as well as some pillars of the local community, go through some substantial loss, and eventually reach a satisfying pinnacle by the end. I'll save the specifics for later because, believe it or not, it actually does have a baring on review I'm about to write.

In the modern day, however, Far Cry only keeps to it's namesake by changing locations, and even then one has to wonder how long they can do that whilst keeping this tenuous running narrative that they seem to want to tie in, whilst not wanting to commit to it at the same time. For those who don't know, the name 'Far Cry' in relation to this series is meant to imply a scenario which is a 'far cry' from your ordinary life. (Which could be the case for any game out there, but at least now you know this series' mission statement.) This could be any situation from being stuck on an island full of mutants, getting stranded in the middle of an African civil war, getting captured by pirates, assuming the role of a resistance fighter against a tyrannical regime that has consumed your birth country or just saddling up to a typical American mid-western nowhere State only to find it ruled and controlled by a doomsday cult. (That last one is the plot of Far Cry 5, by the way.)

Now before I do get into what the game actually contains, I should probably address the elephant in the room which, in this case, would be the man in charge of greenlighting Ubisoft games. Apparently until very recently every single Ubisoft game would have to be overseen by this dinosaur of a man who was very particular about the games he liked and would kill a project dead if it didn't align to his supremely narrow tastes. This was the excuse that Ubisoft have rode behind to explain their years of copy-and-paste games and circumvent accusations of being complete hacks, and until I see significant evidence otherwise I'll believe them. (Even though there are times when I wonder about how his influence infected things like, basic character development. But we'll see.) In the years to come, with him no longer in the company, the hope is that things will be better; although now his job has been split up and divvied to a group of his peers so, maybe not then.

Intro

With that in mind, let's talk Far Cry. The game kicks off with the player being introduced as a local deputy who has been recruited by the state police to apprehend Joseph Seed, leader of 'The Project at Eden's Gate', a doomsday Cult who vaguely preach of the oncoming 'collapse'. The story tries to establish what a cruel man Joseph is by having him- gently hold a man's head to death? (I've watched that scene twice and still have no idea what happened. His hands even came away bloody- what the heck?) That sense of foreboding is better felt, however, once your helicopter lands in the middle of his compound and you start seeing his heavily armed 'flock' (>Cough< Army >Cough<) eyeballing you all the way to his church. At this point you get to meet the man himself, surrounded by his family for the only time in the entire game, and you start to see his prevailing character trait; Preaching. Oh, does our boy like to preach, to the point where all meaning and menace it might have imparted starts to dissipate to impatience as you just end up wishing the arse would get to the point a bit quicker.

And in typical Far Cry fashion the event go thusly; Deputy Rookie here (you are interchangeably referred to as 'Deputy' and 'Rookie' throughout the game which makes me think that the team genuinely couldn't decide when they were writing this game) cuffs 'The Father' (because of course he calls himself that) and tries to march the man back to the helicopter. The flock become increasingly agitated at this and soon start hurling themselves into the helicopters blades in order to send it crashing back down to earth. (These guys get real dramatic, huh.) Miraculously everyone survives and we are treated to perhaps the most genuinely effective and creepy moment in the entire game. As you radio goes wild with Dispatch begging to know if everyone is alright, Joseph Seed saunters over to your cockpit while you're still dazed (and hanging upside down) picks up the radio and announces that everything is fine. To which you hear Dispatch say "Thank god, bless you Father." A really great moment that makes the player think 'oh god, just how big and influential is this cult?'

You may have noticed, at this point, the way in which I've so far never referred to the player character by their name, and there is a reason for that. You see, Ubisoft seems to have gradually gotten the memo that their protagonists are some of the most boring and forgettable characters in the AAA industry, and thus have steadily started stepping away from them in their latest titles. Assassin's Creed is moving to an RPG structure to let the player decide the character's personality, Ghost Recon has abandoned character building altogether and favours stoically 'gruff' military stereotypes, and Far Cry 5 opted for an impressively mediocre character creator system for an apparent AAA game in which it is genuinely impossible not to make your protagonist look like a Redneck. But then the fictional state in which the action is set, Hope County, is the kind of place for Rednecks so I suppose that's on purpose.

From this point forward in the storyline if you've played literally any Ubisoft game in the past 5 years you know exactly how the game is structed. You have three lieutenants who occupy 3 different regions of the map and the player must systematically take them down before getting a chance to aim for 'The Father.' The one change that Far Cry 5 does make to this system is making it just a little more freeform in the way you take those leaders down. All regions start with this bar that represents the amount of chaos you've been causing in their region, and as you hit certain milestones along that bar that lieutenant will force you into story events (which are oddly formulaic) and up the danger of the ambient enemies you find in the wild. How that chaos is raised is where Far Cry 5 really shows of it's promise.

Completing main missions contribute the most to that bar, obviously, but side missions do so as well; and so do ambient missions which pop up in the wild and the capturing of outposts. What Ubisoft did with this title was actually make use of their endless objectives, which typically makes their worlds so unbearable, and twisted it into somewhat meaningful progression. In the eyes of the optimist this makes it so that the player can engage in any activity and still contribute to the main story, whilst for the pessimist this takes away a lot of the impact that events you perform have, outside of scripted moments. For me, however, I've taken to see this as a positive direction for Ubisoft titles going forward, because I'm sick of clearing out countless gang hideouts for no other reason than to see that completion bar tick forward. (It's demoralising.)

One element of the gameplay which hasn't changed, although perhaps that's for the better is the gunplay and general action of Far Cry which is solid, as ever, for this entry. Shooting feels great and can even be exhilarating in the right scenario's with enough enemies fighting at once, (Although you'll not often find a good number of enemies to gun down like you might want) and the addition of a very casual crafting system for throwables means you're more likely to be chucking Molotov's and remote explosive in the knowledge that they can be easily replaced. Vehicles have had a little bit of an overhaul this entry in that many of them come with weapons attached, and they feel like a lot of fun to play around with. I especially liked the planes which felt genuinely tense during the odd dogfights that you could become dynamically embroiled in thanks to the escalating ambient threat level. My only gripe was that it feels certain measures were taken to pull back on some of the takedown abilities that previous Far Cry protagonists had, to the point where it's really difficult to pull off chain takedowns in order to clear out an outpost. (And they straight up removed the impressive-looking vehicle takedowns from Far Cry 4.) But overall the game is a blast in the raw gameplay.

Exploration is another aspect to commend when it comes to Far Cry 5, for whilst this may arguably be one of the most boring locations that we've ever been greeted to in a Far Cry game, actually traversing it and discovering it is a lot more fun. There's an abundance of vehicles and traversing tools at the player's disposal, and your reward for exploring, especially the caches, tends to be more skill points so that the player feels like they're progressing simply from the act of going off the beaten path. Talking about those stashes, I appreciate Ubisoft's effort in making each one a little puzzle to get to rather than just have it laying out in the open. It meant that there isn't as many of them (as Far Cry games are usually littered with useless containers) and that you get some enjoyment out of collecting them, however small. (The puzzles can be insultingly easy at times.)

In fact rewards in general are a lot better in Far Cry 5 than they've ever been for Ubisoft games. Some of the side quests award cool weaponised trucks or planes with bomb chambers attached to them. And if fact, some side quests reward your other pursuits aside from killing, like allowing the player to easily craft hunting aides or giving you new fishing poles. Oh that's right, there is fishing in this game and it is about as fun as you'd expect from modern day titles. It comes across as a casualised-version of Red Dead Redemption's and Final Fantasy XV's fishing minigames, with not really any point where you actually feel challenged but it's still a decent amount of fun to waste some time on. I feel like this world, as opposed to other Ubisoft worlds recently, more successfully marries the gameplay and vision so that you don't even feel stopped from doing something you want to do by the constraints of poor world design. (Which was one of my biggest issues with AC:Origins) That being said, I'm sad to report that the special collectibles which you get throughout the game are uniquely pointless. None of them reward anything unique apart from the Records which allow for more music to blare on the car radios that you probably don't even listen too all that much anyway. (Several missed opportunities there, Ubisoft.)

Another big change comes in the 'guns for hire' system which echoes the companion system last used in Far Cry 2. (Although back in that game your companions could die permenately whereas in this game they shake off that multiple rocket launcher blasts with just twenty minutes beauty sleep.) The way it works is that the Deputy will happen upon different prominent folks and animals with side quests that can be done to unlock them, afterwhich they and their special abilities will be at the player's disposal. There are companions who are best for stealth, those that work best in firefights, some who pilot air vehicles and one who is a Bear. But what they all share is that they will risk life and limb to revive the player when they go down. (Which is nice.) Additionally, you can hire random folk off the street to be your companions depending on their weapon of choice, although there isn't a great amount of thought put into this particular system as they all feel pretty generic and underpowered. (I get the feeling it this was tacked on at the end)

The Story

As the narrative of the game is split into the different regions and the member of Eden's Gate who run them it would probably be fitting to follow along that trajectory. So let's start with John Seed, the man the player is encouraged to pursue first. Just like all the other lieutenants he becomes a target after he's placed in charge of one of your police friends from the helicopter crash, but seeing as how none of them really have all that much character and personality to them, the story quickly tries to give you personal reasons to hate these fellows as well. For John's sake, it's that he is chief of propaganda and indoctrination, which means that it's his job to take resistant folk and convince them that they are sinful beasts in desperate need of redemption. A task which obviously translates to him carving the name of your 'sin' on the body and cutting that flesh off. (Symbolic, I guess?)

His is the most straightforward relationship with the character in that everytime that a milestone is tripped he'll kidnap you and try to indoctrinate you again, only for it not to work in the slightest, rinse and repeat. Thus starts one of my real pet-peeves with this game's story, in that every major narrative event is activate by the enemy kidnapping you through a scripted event, meaning the protagonist get's rendered unconscious and kidnapped no less than eight times in this story! Never once are they just killed. It's beyond James Bond levels of stupid by the end of the game, and the act of being at the mercy of you enemy wears off by kidnap 2. By the time you square off against John not really much is learned about him besides the fact that he was physically abused by his parents. I suppose that counts as character building, albeit it's revealed just by Joseph telling you about this after he's already dead, so there goes the agency of the information as well as any hope of an effective portrayal. (I don't want much, Ubisoft, just the bare minimum.)

Jacob Seed is a lot more interesting of a character just through his nature as a war veteran who's obsessed with, in his words, 'culling the weak'. It's his job to take charge of the kidnap victims and indoctrinate them into the Eden's Gate army through brainwas- wait a minute this is starting to sound familiar... Jacob is all about this idea of strength and his events all revolve around this idea of forced hardship and sacrifice as the only means to progress. In fact, in the grand scheme of things this is the literal only character who's actions seem to gel with the overall message of the cult. They fear some sort of collapse that will send mankind back to their caveman days, and Jacob is trying to 'toughen' people up for that world, albeit in very a very sick, Clockwork Orange-esque way.

Oddly, his rule of the area is given a direct foil for the player to work alongside known as the Whitetails, who seem to be a collection of survivalists that resist him. (As opposed to the other regions wherein the foils are just ordinary folk) Even stranger is that Jacob appears to really hate these Whitetails, labelling them cowards despite them literally fitting the bill for 'tough, live off the land' folk like he was trying to forge. In a better written narrative I would argue that this was a purposeful hypocrisy in order to highlight the paradoxical nature of his world view, but given that there's literally no fuel or weight behind that I merely conclude it was laziness in order to allow Jacob's plotline to occur. Although to be fair Jacob's plotline is the best realised in the game so perhaps it's a little worth it in the overall.

Jacob kidnaps the Deputy at every milestone then has them run through kill-gauntlets to train them into being a solider. (Despite the fact that, at this point they'll have killed literally hundreds of his men so there really is nothing to prove.) The Whitetails are the player's savour form this training, although there's slight talk of  'mental programming' being an aftermath of Jacob's sessions and how you 'can't be trusted'. By this point you'll likely have figured out where this is going but Ubisoft think they're geniuses so you have to be kidnapped a least two more times before you end up going through that gauntlet again only for the final target to be the Whitetails' leader, Eli. (Who could have seen that coming...) So Jacob's master plan was to kill the Whitetail's leader, big whoop, but that's immediately proceeded by a teeth-scrapingly tedious boss fight in which Jacob is killed. (So, guess that's a net-loss for the Seeds, huh?) What really bugs me about this end to his ark, however, is that it concludes with Jacob rambling about how he 'doesn't give a crap if he dies' and how 'you're just proving Joseph right' which literal conflicts with his entire survivalist mentality! Why is this guy the ultimate doomsday prepper who's raised an entire army if his ultimate philosophy was 'Oh, I'll throw it all away just to get a potshot at Eli for really vague reasons, I don't care about surviving really.'? Once more, a potentially good villain falls apart because Ubisoft just can't make up their minds about what they wanted to do with him.

Finally there is Faith Seed, and hers is certainly the most visually interesting of the plot threads. As every Ubisoft game must have at least one dream sequence, (literally all of them) she is the villain who peddles in hallucinogenic drugs and specialises in indoctrinating folk by turning them into drug addicts. Wait a minute- are all of the Seed family indoctrinators? I mean, these games usually have each lieutenant focus on a different element of the regime so that the player can pretend they're having an effect on the world when they take them down one by one. (Because Ubisoft couldn't have there be actual consequences; that'd be too hard. It's not like Crackdown did exactly that over a decade ago.) I just find it a little odd to have all three people serve practically the same function to Eden's Gate, but maybe I'm just being a stickler there.

At her milestones, Faith has you drugged and bought into her world, which is one of the most visually arresting depictions of The Garden of Eden that I have ever seen. Seriously, if these weren't linear scripted sections I would love to explore this spot. In fact, I think there could be some apocalyptically amazing boss fights here if this was handled by the kind of developers who could handle that like FromSoftware or Ninja Theory. As it just so happens The Garden in this context merely serves as an analogy for Bliss. (Which coincidentally happens to be the name of the drug that she peddles) Her narrative is without real surprise, unless you count her resounding optimism and inconsistent southern accent as surprising. The final bout against her is an especially bad boss fight, which becomes genuinely infuriating at harder difficulties. Someone really needs to tell Ubisoft how to end a plotline without a bossfight, they suck at them.

After all that is said and done the Deputy is clear to shoot for 'The Father', but there's one problem; upon arriving there you discover that Joseph Seed has used the Bliss to brainwash your companions and re-kidnap the police officers that you've literally spent the entire game saving from his lieutenants. (Talk about a one-trick pony) At this point Jacob gives you a choice to either walk away or keep fighting, and I'll admit this was the first time I thought the game actually had the balls to put a weighty choice in my face. Here were the people that I battled alongside, literally on the floor with guns to their heads and I had the chance to save them or sacrifice them in order to take down Jacob. I mean sure, I didn't really have a close bond to any of them but the prospect alone was enough to make me excited. Only to find out that I was wrong, Ubisoft have no balls, why did I ever think they did?

Once you turn down his offer, rather than gun down your companions it just activates a boss fight wherein you have to 'save' them from the Bliss by, get this, shooting them down and reviving them again. (Bossfight Design 100) Yeah, the entire finale is shooting your friends in the face in order to make them on your side again, I can't even appropriately formulate how stupid and boring that is for the final boss! Not to harp on the way that ever single boss encounter in this game sucks, (Apart from the John Seed fight which is a dogfight in fighter planes, that was pretty cool) but I'm astounded at the way the team actually, probably knowingly, saved their worst idea for last. The fight isn't challenging, introduces no new tactics, builds upon nothing you've already developed, doesn't make any remote sense, isn't fun and, worst of all, squanders a moment of genuine ethos that the game could have had.

At the end of Far Cry 2 you are met with a similar moment, which is why I dared to hope for Far Cry 5, only back then it seems that Ubisoft still had a backbone. At the end of Far Cry 2 (big spoilers) it becomes apparent that the war between the African warlords isn't going to end well for the locals and so it's placed in the player's hands, by the Jackal they've been hunting all this time, to secure these locals' passage to safety. One means of this is by finding a crashed delivery of blood diamonds and using it to pay for their passage out of this country. Upon reaching the diamonds, however, you find every single Merc friend you've made already there and sitting on the haul, ready to take it for themselves. At which point the shoe drops. None of you are good people, you are all just paid killers who came to this land to exploit the hardship for financial gain, the fact that you as a player are even going out of your way to help the locals is an anomaly. (likely spurred on the malaria that you are certainly going to soon die by) Ultimately, the only thing you can do from that point is kill all the people that you battled alongside in order to secure the diamonds for the locals, putting this real weight behind the wrapping up of the story and spurring this moment of self reflection about the kind of person you've been all this time.

Far Cry 5 doesn't have time for that level of introspection. No, Far Cry 5 just wanted to bring all the characters together to have a Smash Bros. style free-for-all where nothing makes sense and nothing has any consequences. I cannot tell you how genuinely annoyed I am at Far Cry 5's writing staff for lacking the integrity to follow through, because it just knocks all the wind out of the story's sails and really makes it hard to care about the events that follow. If you didn't have what it takes to kill off the Cops and force me to execute my companions, then why literally put those characters on the floor with guns to their heads and brainwash the rest of them? It's like they were taunting us with some level of narrative weight just to watch us flounder. Needlessly to say, this cost the game considerably in my eyes.

The only saving grace for the story comes after the Father is beaten. Just as it seems everything has come to a wrap, Joseph Seed resorts back to his most overused tool in his arsenal; preaching about the impending end of the world. (Yawn) Only this time: The End of the World begins. By that I mean, Nukes start to blow off all over the state and the epilogue of game is characterised by an incredibly cinematic race through Hope County as it's ravaged by nuclear fire like this is Fallout or something. (Despite that fact that you are in direct eyeline of like three different Nukes which should render you three time over blind, but lets not sweat the details.) It's an unexpected twist that is deftly set-up, foreshadowed and executed. I'm amazed to say it, but Ubisoft's writing staff did a good job with this one. (Even if I knew it was coming because Ubisoft literally told everyone the ending at the start of their next E3. Way to go blow the surprise for late-comers like myself!) The story ends after the getaway car crashes and Joseph Seed, immortal that he seems to be, climbs out the car and drags the Deputy, and only the Deputy, into a bunker to wait out the nuclear holocaust. He ties you to a bed, announces that you are to be his child and he your father (Very creepy there, bud) and then stares you down until the credits. Effective, surprising and, dare I say it, even a tiny-bit poignant.

Conclusion

There was a lot of controversy surrounding this game in the months after announcement and even after release. It started as a condemnation of the way the game portrayed religion, (despite the fact the game was really portraying cults; Christianity, though implied, is never explicit mentioned once in the game) and evolved into complaints about the game tackling politics. Now in my opinion there is nothing wrong with game's tackling controversial issues and even contemporary issues, and though I recognise how some people like to argue that games should be purely escapism; I respect your opinion but storytelling always roots itself in the world around us, and commentary can be a natural product of a story told right. Although in this instance in particular, people who complained about politics in Far Cry 5 really need to get their act together. Far Cry 5's references to politics are ludicrously anecdotal and flimsy, with the most substantial piece of commentary being a tired parody of one of the most parodied political figures on the planet, (Three guesses who that is) I honestly wish they had gone in a little more as that would have naturally lent a little more heft to the narrative.

Speaking of: just like usual, the story of Far Cry 5 is it's weakest component and the gameplay is the strongest, although that gameplay is also so derivative that you could probably get the same amount of enjoyment from another playthrough of Far Cry 4. Whereas Assassin's Creed still has the odd interesting character or standout performance to lean it's narrative on, Far Cry 5 doesn't even really have that as none of the character's feel fleshed out and the villain, though acted competently, feels excessively one-dimensional. That being said, I enjoyed my time with the game enough to go through it a second time, although that was with skipping by all of the cutscenes (Which I never do, by the way) and it was on the highest difficulty which, quite notably, was not balanced. (That intro turret scene almost made me uninstall the game right there.)

Far Cry 5 is not a bad game by any means, it's just oppressively average; which sort of sounds like my review of current Ubisoft in general. I suffered about 8 crashes in my time, 4 bouts of severe audio issues and a couple crazy lag spikes, (on console, by-the-by) but when I spent almost 6 days of playtime in the game (I'm 90% most of that is in pause menus, in my defence) I can't really call the thing unplayable. Far Cry 5 is the sort of game that I wouldn't really recommend to anyone who already owns a Far Cry game, or even someone who's interested in getting into FPS', but I suppose if you've never played a Far Cry and are desperate to try one than this is technically the best rendition of that franchise's formula. And whilst in all fairness this game does, through merit of it's gameplay refinements, earn the ever so slightly above average label of a C+, I personally am someone who puts great stock in storytelling and that cop-out at the end really did upset me. In fact, it's with great restraint that I attribute a C grade to this game and not any lower. (Because if I did go lower than I'd just be vindictive at that point.) Given the news of the ousted toxic Ubisoft game head and the boon of Giancarlo Esposito being in the lead, I have hope that Far Cry 6 could be a new dawn for the franchise, but nowhere near enough hope not to wait several months until a heavy discount to find out for sure. Until the next Ubisoft game...

Not another one!

Amazon Joins the fight!

Stop me if you've heard this before; but a big company waltz's into the gaming industry, slams it's manhood down on the table and announces it's the next big thing. No, I'm not doing an erotic retelling of the Microsoft-Bethesda deal, I'm talking about Amazon joining the fight for gaming supremacy in the very near future. Within the next year Amazon will be coming out with their new game streaming service in order to rival the likes of GeForce Now, Microsoft's X-Cloud and... I guess Google Stadia, but that service doesn't really need to be rivalled, now does it? And I have to say, hearing this my very first thought, quite literally the first thing that came to mind, was "Oh, they haven't done that already?" It's like hearing that Final Fantasy is getting it's sixteenth entry finally, you just find yourself confused that they haven't already made a sixteenth game. (In which you would be right, FF XVI is like the 40th entry when counting all the side games and spin-offs.) Amazon crossing the Rubicon like this was only a matter of time, the question is whether or not they can make a big enough splash to make an impression for themselves in the wide ocean of the gaming world.

Now, streaming services get a bad wrap, at least within the world of gaming, and that partially comes from a certain amount of mistrust and lacking communication. When we hear about Google making it's way to us with a whole new service, one needs merely to look at the graveyard of Google services to conclude that this is hardly a serious effort and thus can be easily overlooked. And when a streaming service is announced without making it abundantly clear where falls important issues like software ownership rights and the platforms on which those games are kept, the marketing team is going to run afoul of the gamers who are cognizant to those sorts of issues. (Which, fyi, are a lot of them.) As it exists right now, there is no single streaming service that offers the correct amount of features to be a feasible replacement for a gamer's set-up, especially not a PC gamer. And in some ways that opens the field for a new competitor to step in, and in other ways it highlights just how early this tech is if even these titans can't manage to get the job done.

Then again, we are talking about Amazon here, so when it comes to dealing with folk with the technology and capital to change the face of gaming, there really is no need to look any further. Google may be big, but they rarely have the faith in their side projects to put in their weight behind them, but Amazon on the otherhand have enough money to put their weight behind any slight fancy. Want to start a TV-streaming service? They got it done. Want to implement a drone delivery service? They are actively working on wide-spread distribution of that. Want to fund a rocket to Mars? I'll bet they're planning to announce their Space-X competitor before the year is out. (Hey, stranger things have happened!) So when I hear that Amazon want's to start a game streaming service, I'm willing to concede that it could work out for them, depending on how they spin it.

Luna, is the name of this new streaming competitor, named after our dear old natural satellite up there. (Although if I wear Amazon I would really lean into the gamer angle, partner up with Square Enix and try to spin this as a direct reference to Lunafreya Nox Fleuret, gamer's love that pandering stuff!) The service will be available through the Amazon fire TV and can be used through a controller that they sell or any other controller you have lying around. (Which is great because the controller they sell is so close to the Xbox controller it's a wonder that no patents were infringed.) Right now it is available only in the US as a sort of trial run, but I would be interested to see how this thing picks up once that net gets wider. Unlike with Google Stadia the barrier to entry with this service is supremely low, from a cost perspective, and they promise to provide games without having to buy them individually. (A huge step up from the Stadia.)

What's more, Amazon have even gone the extra step of straight up stealing Google's ideas, such as teasing some sort of Twitch integration whereupon you can see a game then beam it right to the TV. Of course, such a feature has yet to even show up on Stadia so this could be some more 'overly optimistic developer' speak, but I'm sure that seamless integration will pop up on both services one day. (No Man's Sky finally got those Giant sandworms the otherday, so if they can get it done there must be hope for anyone!) Although, to be honest, I do wonder just how much these gimmicks will really change the way content is viewed. Afterall, viewing gameplay is an inherently passive action, I for one couldn't be bothered to get out a controller when I just want to sit down and watch someone else do it. Also there's the question of how that will effect the viewing in general, as Twitch Streams are much more dependant on concurrent viewership than Youtube's pre-recorded videos are. I may by thinking about this a little too hard, but I wonder if Amazon are getting a little ahead of themselves in this regard.

What I cannot criticize however, is the cost of their premium service which is said to provide multiple devices, 4k Streaming and only go for $5 a month. I'd imagine this will be the service behind which all the brand new games that are coming to the service will launch. (As Ubisoft have already loaned out it's fresh franchises to this new hotness; they're desperate at this point to lead this charge into streaming.) Right now this price point is a lot more palatable than Google's $10 (Which only gives you a discount for purchasing games, least you forget) and if they can build it into a mini version of Xbox Game Pass, maybe with a smaller rotation of games coming through, Amazon could really strongly cement themselves in the gaming ecosystem. Imagine being a smaller indie developer that gets their game in the rotation of the Amazon Luna Plus game's model, that'd be game changing! Of course, this is merely speculation for their future plans, for all we know they could be planning to flush everything down the toilet just like Stadia has.

Of course, I have my reservations about another Streaming service entering gaming. Firstly, the space is already crowded as all heck, at this point it's only a matter of time before that accursed word 'exclusivity' starts getting tossed around and everything descends into the same tribalism that pollutes the console world. Secondly, and this more of a personal gripe, I don't trust Amazon. It's not that I don't trust them to run this service, far from it, I just don't trust them as a tech megacorporation. They're already experts at mining all of our data in order to sell products, now with direct access to gaming habits who knows what they could find out? I'm only marginally more okay with Google because I know their algorithm is so general and dumb that it's been convinced I'm some sort of budding entrepreneurial investor type for the last 6 months. (That is so inconceivably wrong I don't even know what to make of it.) And finally, Amazon has a reputation for attempting to ruin the industries that it enters, I think it's a miracle of timing that TV streaming hasn't been gobbled up by them yet. The gaming industry is full of cheap and ugly ways to wring money out from under us, and I'll bet that, if left unchecked, within a year Amazon will be rivalling EA for the title of 'biggest greedy monster in the industry'.

At the end of the day, or rather today, it's a little too early to get the measure of Amazon Luna quite yet. We still haven't ensured they've correctly built the infrastructure to run any of the things that they're promising. (Something which Google famously struggled with) However seeing them start with a 'soft launch' in America is a promising step to imply that they are doing things right and taking the steady steps that they need to. Such is certainly in their best interest, for all it takes is one colossal screw up on their end to seriously damage their reputation before it's even managed to set itself. (Gamers can be unforgiving like that sometimes) I know I'm a little early on this one, but I wanted to really 'ground floor' this one to get it's measure as best as I could. I suppose the first impressions of the next few weeks will really let us know if we have a new competitor to the gaming world, or just another embarrassing fart that'll fizzle out before Christmas.

New Vegas 2?

Dare I dream?

Much as I promised, today we're going to fully swallow and comprehend exactly what was implied when Obsidian gave their ominous "I dunno" to the question of whether or not Bethesda's recent acquisition opened the door for Fallout New Vegas 2, but first let's go over why this is important. Fallout, originally created by Black Isle Studios, was a decent, if slightly messy, Post-apocalyptic spiritual successor to Wasteland. When Bethesda got ahold of the the franchise they popularised it by bringing it to the 3d space in an, up until then, unparalleled 3D open world that pushed forward what RPG games could be. They struck a lot of fame with their game and Bethesda became synonymous with the franchise with one lucky entry. After that, however, the remnants of BIS, now Obsidian, got a chance to come back to the Fallout franchise and provide their own take with Fallout New Vegas. New Vegas completely redefined everything that Bethesda had laid and proved to become the best Fallout title to date, which it still is. Unfortunately, similar gameplay made it feel to some as though this was just a 'expansion' upon what Bethesda built, limiting the game's critical success. But as time has gone on fondness has grown and now, with Bethesda's recent floundering of the franchise, most recognise New Vegas as the peak of the franchise.

That's what makes it such a bummer that we weren't going to get another Obsidian Fallout game because of stupid semantics. What semantics? Well the overall Metacritic score for New Vegas was a few points below the required fresh hold for a bonus, and whilst that in itself is not some sort of 'ground zero' for bad blood like some like to argue it was, (The deal was to hit this overall review point which they didn't hit, professionalism would dictate no feelings were hurt here and no promises were broken) this would certainly be an excuse for Zenimax not to place the franchise back in their hands again. "They didn't excel like we wanted them too, so why trust them with that opportunity again?". Obsidian certainly didn't let it get to them, as they moved on to their own games and making their own reputation, even going so far as to revive Wasteland in two great games. But for us fans there was always that nagging longing for New Vegas style action that Bethesda was just plain ill-equipped to satiate, and until recently things would have stayed that way in perpetuity.

But what was it that made New Vegas so good? And what is missing from today's Fallout which it could desperately use some Obsidian magic? Well that really depends on who you ask but for me, it was the focus on a post-apocalyptic society, rather than a just a post-apocalyptic world. What I mean by that is Fallout 3 and 4 did a great job of portraying a world that had fallen in the wake of the bombs, but whenever it came to realising the society that grew out of that carnage, they always seemed to fall short. Rivet City and Megaton where probably the best iterations of this during their tenure with the franchise, but Fallout 4's Diamond City felt passionless and without purpose. It's hard to quite explain, but when you play New Vegas and look at the world which has spawned out of the Mojave wasteland it all just makes sense. You have tourist towns that have become consumed by Cowboy law, roving bands of drug addicts of the outskirts of the city and gangs popping up in the slums around the Strip. You even have whole weird societies popping up in the casino families wherein the exaggeration of image becomes a backbone for their way of life. Vegas just felt like more of a world that was real, whereas Bethesda's Fallout, whilst still being unique, sometimes fell a little flat.

Now of course, what makes those worlds work so well are the people who inhabit them, and from there it really becomes a matter of opinion for what you prefer. Obsidian tend to lean towards writing side characters with some sort of driving force to them, whereas Bethesda seem to aim towards folk who just fit into their environment and are happy to do so. I personally relate more to the former and thus that's what I respond more to when I see it in my Fallout. This goes doubly true with the way the two developers handled Companions and the way they work in Fallout games. New Vegas boasted a cast of unforgettable misfits whilst Fallout 4 had a group of likeable characters, but most of whom didn't really progress as characters by the end. (Character progression was something Obsidian prioritised when they made their companions.) Maybe you see Bethesda's method for NPC creation as superior, it really comes down to personal preference, but for me no Fallout title has come close to that feeling of twisted authenticity that I felt in the whacky world of New Vegas.

So with that sort of glowing endorsement, you can probably figure why it is I'm so stoked that Obsidian are even possibly capable of a new Fallout game now that they are owned under the same umbrella as Bethesda, because I trust them a lot more than I do Zenimax's baby. And honestly, I think a lot of the excitement at this coy scepticism is fuelled and thus the responsibility of Bethesda for the failures in the Fallout franchise of late. Fallout 4 pushed the franchise forward in gameplay, but regressed in practically all the other areas, (you know, there areas that really matter for an RPG?) and Fallout 76 is a game that needs no introduction when describing all of it's messes, although if you want an update: they recently introduced, and then screwed up, a 'battle pass' system by forcing players to do daily tasks in order to progress it rather than just letting it accrue with general experience. (Sometime I genuinely think no one in the development staff has ever played the game they're designing for.)

I, and every other Fallout fan who's grown tired of getting fed these rotten scraps, hanker at the chance to present this flagging franchise back to those who did it a good turn so long ago, but maybe the real question at this point would be if Obsidian themselves are even willing to take the games back. Remember that the response from them so far was one of distinct non-committal, they didn't even say that they would if they had the chance, and why would they? Obsidian have their Wasteland games which are critical darlings, and are hard at work on The Outer Worlds, which I'm fairly certain they're working to make a franchise, as well as Avowed, which is an entirely new property that needs their attention. (And that's not to mention 'Grounded' and the small team working on that.) What I'm trying to say if that Obsidian have their hands firmly full right now, so even if Microsoft wrenched the Fallout licence from Bethesda's cold hands and presented it to Obsidian on a gold-plated platter, we may not get the answer we are hoping for.

But just imagine if we did. Obsidian in the size that they are at now, with the resources they have now, and the backing of Mircrosoft, could make the ultimate Fallout game to end all other Fallout games. It probably wouldn't be the biggest, (Afterall Fallout 76's Appalachia is almost too big as it is) but I could guarantee it would be the most detailed with enough great characters, choice-consequence, memorable side quests, worthwhile collectibles, ponderous themes, badass new factions and tongue in cheek humour to transport as all to the land of Fallout's nuked America for a good long while. It might even be enough to reignite the modding community, who never seemed to settle to Fallout 4 too strongly, as being in a world brimming with creative ingenuity tends to rub off on people. And of course I don't intend to leave Bethesda potless, they have their Elder Scrolls games as well as Starfield, (Which I hope ends up looking a lot better than that leaked Screenshot made it seem) and as far as I'm concerned, the more time they have to invest on those properties the better; give Obsidian back their Fallout.

Now of course, I'm purposefully whittling all these complex matters of licenses and franchise ownership down because it make for the most fun discussion, but it should likely be pointed out that, no; Obsidian will never own the Fallout property again. The most we can hope for is a partnership similar to the one which birthed New Vegas for us all, but given how timeless that title has proven to be perhaps that's not such a bad thing afterall. So let me say it now and risk this ageing terribly; the future of Fallout is cast in Obsidian, and I want it no other way. (Pretty please, Microsoft. I'm beggin' here...)

Metal- Gear?

Things are happening...

So I think that it's hardly an earth shattering revelation right now for me to say that I'm an overwhelmingly huge fan of the Metal Gear franchise. I'm talking obsession level right here, I love those games more than I like myself. If there was one series of games I would simultaneously give my right arm to work on whilst not ever wanting to touch for fear of sullying the franchise, that conflict of emotion could only ever be attributed to Metal Gear. Thus you know that I was well aware of the budding rumours of an impending remaster hitting the first three games of the franchise, or is it a full remake? (Details are sketchy) But all that was neatly undercut by a huge, actual, development that came right the heck out of nowhere; Metal Gear is now on PC!

Now by 'Metal Gear' I unfortunately only refer to Metal Gear Solid 1 and 2, because Snake Eater never gets the love it deserves, but that is some bona fide progress considering the amount of fan made projects attempting to do that very thing which Konami has cut down in the past ten years. (I count at least three.) For some incomprehensible reason none of these games have made their way to Steam or Epic yet, but debuting on GOG is good enough for the time being and it opens the figurative floodgates for all sorts of things that just weren't possible before for fans. For example, now there can be actual work done on HD retexture packs and even model swaps. (The latter of which would certainly be more difficult, but would be welcome considering the low-res models on the first game at least.) We could be looking at a whole renaissance of Metal Gear appreciation starting right now!

But why is this happening? Why now? Konami, as it stands, has no level of cred with the dedicated gaming community and unfortunately for them, not a lot of their brands hold mainstream appeal. Castelvania is typically best when a platformer, Bomberman hasn't been a household name for decades and Metal Gear suffers from the perception of being 'too long'. Each one of these titles that I have mentioned have suffered from either mismanagement or straight up character assassination, so if Konami is trying to drum up excitement they're going to have an uphill struggle. There would have to something big up their sleeves, some sort of upcoming game that could win over even the most curmudgeonly gamers. They'd have to be working up to a full remake of the Metal gear Solid Games. (That's right, we're circling back around to those rumors.)

As the legend goes, someone is hard at work trying to create full remakes, not just remasters, of the MGS franchise in order to capitalize on the same sort of success that Capcom is enjoying. This sort of plan doesn't come out of nowhere either, fans sounded the excitement bell all the way back during the leadup for the abominable Metal Gear Survive when we saw those HD remade MGS 3 cutscenes only to learn they were being made for a Pachinko machine. As a self-proclaimed MGS 3 aficionado who flares his nostrils everytime anyone dares suggest remaking something so close to perfection, even I had to admit that those screens looked good. (A little too much panning in some of the scenes, but I'd rather an over-active camera than a still one.) So Konami knows there's an audience out there willing to pay through the nose for MGS remakes, it makes sense that they'd be capitalising on that.

And this might just come into fruition with another rumour I've been hearing, although to be honest this other one is a lot more of a long shot. Apparently, folk have said that Hideo Kojima, the legend himself, is in talks with Konami in order to get back in their graces to work on Silent Hill(s?) again. Now if that is true, it would be insane giving the absolute 'salted-earth' manner in which their partnership concluded. (Just as a reminder; Konami went so far as to remove Kojima's director credit on the cover of every game it was on.) Plus, other rumours said that their breakup was actually on personal issues over business ones, and I think we all that those wounds tend to cut the deepest. But perhaps cooler heads are prevailing, and Kojima is back on board to help them with the Metal Gear revitalisation project. That would need to be the case, because otherwise I know these games are going to run into some issues.

For one, a full remake would mean that everything would need to be remade from the ground-up, and Konami just aren't talented enough to do that as they are now. Now I say this not as a disparagement against the many artists who do work at Konami, but merely as an observation of the mess they made of Metal Gear Survive. That's a game that was not only conceptually rotten, but which stunk in every aspect. They couldn't even mimic Kojima's eye for shot composition to the point where it was immediately obvious where they stitched his footage with their own. And as for them lacking the writing talent, that's no great insult, most of the world lacks the writing talent to get up to speed with, yet alone significantly add to, Kojima's hair-brained narrative. Even the art of reworking some plot points could collapse the entire premise without the right eyes involved, think about how crazy the source material is! You've got nano-bots, vampires, photosynthesising centenarians; this stuff ain't coming together without a bonafide genius pulling the strings on the otherend.

For two, I don't particularly think that Metal Gear is quite in need of a remake quite as much as the Resident Evil games were. I mean sure, Resident Evil 2 was a masterpiece, but one that was poorly aged in mechanics, gameplay and visuals; Metal Gear Solid 3, for example, is aged in visuals at best. Maybe a few mechanics could do with some work too. But if you remastered the game right it would easily stand up against the stealth games of today as one of the best examples of it's genre, and that's something you can't really improve upon. I wonder if you'd even get anything out of rerecording actors lines, because some lines may be a little stiff, but a lot of it carries the charm of the franchise. We're not talking 1990's Capcom level of crap-tier acting, there's little to improve upon.

At the end of the day, bear in mind that I'm heavily protective of these games so any issue I introduce is going to get naturally inflated, but also remember that I'm the key target audience, so if they can't sell it to me they're pretty much up a creek. Personally I had already long come to terms with the death of my favourite franchise, and I really don't want that corpse poked around any more than it already has been. At this point I don't even know if I'm up for continuation games, even with Kojima at the helm, that's how over this period of games I am. But if the stars align and that old MGS magic manages to break through this rusty exterior of faux-disinterest, I may be willing to at least see what these remakes have to offer. And even if it's a mess, a least we have the originals to fall back on. (Either way; it's a surprisingly good day to be a Metal Gear fan)

The Gunk

(Yes, this blog uploaded itself a little early originally. My bad.)

The mystery thickens.

I like a good mystery out of my games, and what can be more mysterious than a game that doesn't even really spell out it's details even in a full reveal trailer? Mircosoft's reveal even for their Xbox line-up was full of games which wore their hearts on their sleeve and thus didn't really stand out all that well, such to the point where it was the outliers who won my attention. Take for example, this title we're talking about today, and the heck of a time I've had scrounging up an idea of what to expect from it. Call it a gamble, but I've chosen to believe in the obscurity of this game as a prelude to something great, even if I can't prove it, so without further ado I want to talk about 'The Gunk'.

Revealed at the Xbox game event (or should I say 'teased') 'The Gunk' appears to be, at least conceptually, a mix between the industrialism of steampunk and the chaos of alien nature. The teaser showed these sides to the world at least, with a spacefaring explorer touting her genre-necessary mechanical hand (seriously; what is it with Steampunk and metal robot hands?) and being surprised by a gelatinous, seemingly-toxic black substance known as 'The Gunk'. (Hey, that's the name!) Now although the trailer showed us precious little to really go on, what it did tease was a rather lovely looking 3D world space that proved to be both eerie and colourful when it needed to be. It looked pleasing, and I would expect nothing less from the team behind SteamWorld.

That being said, 'The Gunk' is a 3D title and 'Image & Form' games cut their teeth on 2D affairs that proved both satisfying and challenging for fans, how would that translate into a whole other dimension? Well the developer's CEO talked a bit about that on a blog for the Xbox site which doubled as an exclusivity announcement. It's starts off as a pretty standard case of wanting to go out of one's comfort zone and reinvent what they called game design within their own walls, but I was peaked when the started talking about the amount of processing power they were demanding in order to realise the game they wanted. Though the game doesn't look excessively taxing at a glance, apparently some of the systems they were working with was enough to bleed hard frames on current gen development tools leading to a situation between picking the vision or performance. I mean sure, that's arguably the same cycle that every game goes through before optimisation, but the way this guy talked about it made it sound like their vision was so grand it threatened to set consoles on fire or something. Luckily for them, as they frame it, Microsoft picked up the project when asked and bought it over to their powerful machine. (Although apparently it's also releasing on Xbox One so I don't know what to believe right now.)

The game, in concept, is said to follow a duo of adventurers who come down to this planet in search of resources and end up as part of the biggest wildlife clean-up project of all time. Tasked with dealing with this parasitic entity called 'The Gunk', the gameplay will reportedly shape up as the player clearing the world of this gross substance whilst the nature that has been fed on starts to grow back. Apparently this also lends itself to some mystery as the scavengers happen across ruins of ancient civilisations, because of course they do. (Every floating rock in space in home to at least 10 long lost alien races according to games.) And thus the game will revolve around uncovering a mystery, whilst struggling to survive, with a healthy heap of interpersonal drama thrown in there for good measure. (Solid enough.)

There hasn't been much talk about how the main gameplay will actually unfold, but what we've seen actually invokes some of those 'key indie game' vibes that every goes on about. In fact, this very concept vaguely reminds me of that 'Outer Wilds' game that blew everyone away not too long back, with the space-faring concept and the deadly mysterious corruption. Although, in the way that the developers describe they certainly make it sound like a more methodical and relaxed title in the vein of 'Slime rancher', (in feeling, that is) with the removal of 'The Gunk' seeming to be a chore rather than a super involved task. But then some outlets have spoken about monsters and challenging puzzles so we could be looking at a little misdirection on this title. Again, information is so scattered it's hard to read the pulse at all!

What does sort of strike me odd about this game, and has rubbed a few others the wrong way too, is the fact that this title is an Xbox exclusive. Now that isn't to say that I don't understand the concept of exclusives, of course I do, it pays for smaller studios to seek out investment from big companies which can result in exclusivity. I rarely agree with the practice but when it comes to indie games I can certainly turn a blind eye. That isn't, however, the explanation that 'Image and Form' are going with. In fact, the way they tell the story it was their troubles with performance which drove them to the Xbox camp in the first place and they ended up on the Series X because it would be the only console capable of achieving their grand dream. Now personally I have no idea what's under the hood for this game so that story could be 100% accurate for all I know, but I will say that it does seem somewhat odd for a developer to come and and subtly claim that the Playstation 5 is technologically inferior. It's as though Microsoft stipulated that these Devs try and turn their own story into a marketing campaign for Xbox- very shady if true.

An aspect of the game's marketing which I am more positive about is the presentation, which looks to combine a few styles to come up with an interesting and unique feeling alien planet. Though the exploration locations that we've seen so far have been in shaded/harsh areas (either because of a heavy canopy or just the way this world exists) the images and screens are never blinded because of the team's focus on luminescence to light scenes. This not only allows them to reinforce the oppressive harsh colours (which I'll imagine will clear up as The Gunk does) but to also get a bit crazy with the lighting colours and make the game pop in screens. This alone makes the game look a tad magical and whimsical, and I wonder how the team intend to keep things fresh going forward if they've started this strong already.

In conclusion, The Gunk is a curious looking indie title with an absolutely terrible title that I literally beg them to be rid off. (Seriously, it does not stick to the mind at all, doesn't really infor
m any newcomers as to what the title is about, or really even sound that nice to say.) Though it might seem strange to say, with everything we know about this game so far this might be one to file under the label of 'games with relaxing meta-objectives to them'. Playing an intergalactic nature Janitor isn't quite as unique a concept as you'd really think it'd be, but as a fan of metagames within games I understand the appeal of slow work towards a larger goal. Might just keep an eye on this one if we ever actually make it to the next generation.

Final Fantasy XVI

The legacy of the Crystal

So just as I was reaching the tailend of games that I wanted to cover we got hit with yet another gaming event because we are currently living in the end times so why not announce literally everything? The Playstation 5 thus has probably no more big surprises for us, it'll come out pretty much when you'd expect and it costs the exact same as the Series X except for the fact that it has tons more big-name games heading it's way. I'm being seirous when I say that this event was a freakin' powerhouse of big titles getting name dropped with gameplay and in there's literally no better way for me to illustrate that fact than going into my single biggest highlight of the show; Final Fantasy XVI. The Madlads actually did it! (I'm still in shock I think.) So now we can offically get to sitting on our hands praying for there not to be another 10 year development cycle and maybe for the game to be a little commited in scope this time around. (That'd be nice.)

So let me start off my saying the very first thing that came to my mind when this announcement was made... BY THE GODS IT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING, I NEVER THOUGHT I'D LIVE TO SEE THIS DAY! Now onto much more informed and constructive feedback as I say that I was both surprised and somewhat disappointed to see the direction that the series was going. Contrary to the varying degrees of modern and futuristic that we've seen from the Final Fantasy series of late, (With XIII, XV and VII Remake) XVI appears to be taking us all the way back to the medieval routes that the franchise hadn't truly embraced since... well, FF V. Ever since then it's been bouts into steampunk, cyberpunk, futurism, contemporary-but-with-a-twist, a couple of settings that can be best described as classic Isekai, (in an effort not to piss off fans, I won't specify which settings I'm referring to there) and one alternate take on feudalism where everyone was dressed in school outfits for some reason. (Type-0 keeps me up some nights with it's weirdness.) So now we're going back to heavy suits of armour, mildly old-English and strictly no guns, and you know what? I'm not crazily digging it just yet.

Maybe this is coming from the mind of a fellow who has since discovered FF's sister series, Dragon Quest. (Disclaimer, I know they are not actually sibling franchises, no need to tell me) Those games have settled themselves firmly within the well of medieval fantasy to the point where this new Final Fantasy game sort of, from the right point of view, resembles a more realistic rendition of their world. (Just replace their patented smiling blue Slimes with the agape maw of the garden-variety Malboro and you've got a one-to-one comparison!) And just personally I find worlds that function similarly but fundamentally different to our own rather fascinating, so the 'vague imitation of our past' approach doesn't really scratch that itch. I mean, judging from what this trailer showed us, the world doesn't even look particularly high fantasy, which is nuts because that's practically the mission-statement of the FF franchise. "To stick teenagers against world ending threats and remain strictly in high fantasy all the way." Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's how it goes...

But aside from that relatively minor gripe with the presentation of this world, I must say that everything else had me practically drooling. The game looks gorgeous, obviously, and the world seems full of all those staples of the FF multiverse that we all know and love so very well. Elemental magic, Coeurls, Malboro, Eikons (otherwise know as Gods or Eidolons), and hair. Oh the hair. What's more, the gameplay in this trailer actually looked somewhat interesting in a couple of important fashions. Firstly, it appeared as though each attack was weighty, in stark contrast to FFXV's combat, and even seemed to cater for tactile response movement. (Slightly reminiscent of the 'Fallen Order' gameplay scheme.) And secondly because our heartthrob protagonist who seems completely on his lonesome. Yes, I know that Noctis from XV was similarly revealed without his party members (back when that game was still 'Versus XIII') but they never teased solo gameplay. This feels significant, as though we're meant to take note of the fact that this man is a loner for the first time ever in the Final Fantasy main series. (Or maybe Square's just playing the party close to their chest, who knows at this point.)

Something which did strike me, and that I thought was worth mentioning, was how much everything I saw reminded me of FFXV. Now first I should specify, this is absolutely not related to that game in terms of narrative, that game's past was already thoroughly explored in a DLC pack and there's no room for another story, but were I only a casual fan of that game and not as well versed in it's timeline, you'd might have to forgive me for being confused. First there's the relatively mundane and terrestrial medieval setting which compliments with FFXV's purposefully muted modern day setting; then there is the protagonist who appears to be of some royal blood (That could be entirely off base, but that's what I thought I saw) and his general similar appearance to Noctis, to the point that if you told me this guy was part of the Lucis line I'd buy it. Then there is the mention of Cystals. Again! I thought that plotpoint was buried along with the plans for the 3 thematically connected FF games coined 'Fabula Nova Crystallis', yet here we are 10 years later talking about the 'Queen Crystal'. (Why are we still here? Just to suffer?)

In terms of perspective narrative we don't have a great deal to go off, though I still feel like we were shown just a tad too much. (Maybe showing one of the main characters morphing into a horrific monster sort of gave away the twist a bit.) From what we can tell the narrative will follow one Joshua, a son of a Duke who is shackled with the responsibility of being host to some sort of Phoenix like entity, or Irfrit, or both. The Eikons seemed to have retaken their god-like status, with Shiva even having an entire army of faithful crusaders to serve as at least early game antagonists. And the player seems to take the shoes of Joshua's protector who's up for one hell of a challenge if this trailer is to be believed. Apart from that we were assaulted with a series of plotpoints that currently lack context and for this early in the development stage that's completely fine, arguably a tad redundant, but fine.

Now let me mention the most important piece of news regarding this new game, as tends to be the case with Final Fantasy games: who's behind it. Because of the huge creative freedom offered to the Final Fantasy teams, the developers on the project can vastly alter the end result to make it distinctly different. (Which is why all of FFXV's DLC, which all had different directors, felt so vastly distinct form one another) As it happens the director of this game is the former director of Last Remnant, Hiroshi Takai, which spells good fortunes for fans of that applauded title, but the real news is the producer. That's because the man in charge of producing this game is none other than the myth himself, Yoshi P, saviour of Final Fantasy XIV. We're talking about the guy who led the team that turned a disaster of an MMO into the premier fantasy MMO of today, and it seems that has earned him the most coveted project imaginable in the Final Fantasy franchise, a direct sequel to the mainline series.

Needless to say, I'm so ready for a new Final Fantasy. After coming to terms with the fact that I literally will not be alive to see FF XX get announced, I need to cherish everyone I do see, so I don't take this trailer for granted. The fact that this is going to be a console exclusive does sort of burn, but it will apparently be available on PC as well, so as long as that isn't a timed-exclusivity deal (I swear to god Sony, I will chew you out till Ragnarok if that's the case. Scratch that, it just came out that  this is the case. Screw Sony, I hope they all trip over on LEGOs; they're all scumbags) I can live with it. I can't wait to see the more details about the cast, fall in love with the characters, follow along for the media frenzy that will engulf this game and ultimately reach the height of my frenzy months before the game even releases. (I hope I don't get as obsessed as I was with FFXV; those were weird days.) I prematurely Stan this game and will be here waiting for the slightest morsel of information to drop my way. (Damn... and I thought I'd have at least a few months after the release of Cyberpunk to not have another impending game to drool after... silly me...)

Bethesda and Microsoft

The lines have shifted

Okay I've given a square day and a bit for the dust to settle, might as well talk about the heaviest topic to touch the gaming world in a very long while. Now I know, it doesn't really need any introduction as it has been spoken about by near everyone at this point; but I'm a stickler for silly and melodramatic introductions, you may have noticed. In that vein; there has been a disturbance in the industry. Have you felt it? A disruption in the truths that we hold so very dear, a change to the physical laws that we all diligently observe. Someone has made a move, the biggest of moves, the kind of move that changes things forever for for everyone involved, a move with ripples that will last far beyond this year. There's an expression I hear, that if something doesn't matter in five years than it's not worth thinking about, well I have a feeling that this event will last far past that threshold for mattering. And that is because earlier in this very week, the folk over at Microsoft acquired Zenimax; parent company of one Bethesda Softworks. (And, incidentally, her subsidiaries.)

I don't likely need to tell you that this ain't no bottom of the barrel garbage story, this is the absolute big one. In years past the Microsoft train has been a hard one to board when it comes to the realm of gaming, because of their difficulties in securing any significant first party talent to their studio and Sony's tendency to kick a dog when it's down. (And in doing so, kick the rest of the gaming industry in the face. Get a PC storefront Sony- you bunch of antiquated hacks!) The amount of great games that Xbox players missed out on in the last generation was staggering, and in comparison Playstation players missed out on basically nothing apart from Gears (a franchise that's gone on far past it's prime) State of Decay (A game that's always better in your memory than in play) and Sea of Thieves. (A decent enough title but with a really niche fanbase.) As such Microsoft announced their mission to start working on acquiring more first party studios to the 'family of Xbox' (Great name. Doesn't sound cultish at all...) so that the next generation wouldn't suck so bad.

Yet even with that promise all we saw were Microsoft acquiring some smaller, if talented, studios under the hope that one of them, with enough funding, would blossom into their very own 'Naughty Dog' or 'Sucker Punch'. Re-acquiring 'Rare' was a step in that direction, buying Obsidian was a solid move, but all that pales in comparison to the monolithic joining of two titans like Xbox and Bethesda. In fact, the heft of this is reflected in the deal itself; as Microsoft reportedly shelled out a sum to the tune of 7.5 Billion dollars for this acquisition. (Cue the pinky in the mouth) That is... unheard of in studio acquisitions for gaming. People often compare this to the insane deal that Microsoft paid for Mojang and Minecraft (2.5 Billion) or the Disney purchase of Lucasfilm and Star Wars (4.05 Billion); when in truth the only gaming related buyout that even comes close to this is the only one in history to ever eclipse it; that being Tencent (yes, that Tencent) buying a majority stake in Supercell (makers of Clash of Clans) for an estimated value of 10.2 Billion. That's right, this Bethesda deal is the biggest takeover since a mobile studio was claimed by the biggest Chinese goverment shell conglomerate active today. (That's one hell of a flex.)

Of course the question of "What does this all exactly mean" has been bouncing around the head of every armchair market analyst since the moment that blogpost appeared on Bethesda.net; and I'm no different in that regard. Who doesn't want to know a bit about the future of a studio that used to be their absolute favourite, in the industry that they love? Why, in such an instance I'd even say it's healthy to speculate, and so I'll take that as full leave to go nuts with my conspiracy theories. Okay, my first one; Bethesda were Aliens and this purchase it being run through Microsoft by the American Government as a sort of hush-job in order to en- oh wait, I should probably focus on my theories about how this effects the games... Well, Bethesda are the well-known creators and publishers of the much beloved Elder Scrolls franchise and the recently bruised Fallout franchise, but under them lies the studios behind Dishonoured, Wolfenstein and DOOM; making this a literal buyout of all the classics. What does this mean?

Well the obvious answer is 'nothing', at least not yet. Sony have made the act of studio acquisitions synonymous with stringent exclusivity policies, but such does not need to be so. When you strip away all the marketing nonsense about "ensuring our games run on the best hardware with the best ecosystem" there's really nothing technical holding back first party titles from jumping the gap, it's all just a powerplay. If Microsoft were in the lead coming into this generation then I have no doubt that they'd be just as bad as Sony and jealously hoard every multi-million dollar Bethesda franchise to themselves, but seeing as how Microsoft need to cement themselves in the running for gamer dominance again, I think it's just as likely for future Bethesda games to go to everyone. I mean, Bethesda announced this marriage whilst still being tied into two timed-exclusivity deals with Sony, that as far as I can tell they are still set on honouring, so this does lay the groundworks for the bare minimum of studio cooperation.

But let us play Devil's advocate for a moment and assume that Microsoft do lose their minds and decide to lock down Bethesda; what would that mean? Well, that would make The Elder Scrolls 6, Starfield, the next Fallout title, a third DOOM game and a third Wolfenstein, all Xbox exclusives. Now let me be absolutely clear, this is worlds better than if Sony somehow managed to seal this deal and went the same direction with it. Why? Simple; because Microsoft have a policy that everyone of their first party games launches simultaneously on PC, meaning there's no awkward scenario where DOOM's incredibly loyal PC base is locked out from their game. Yes, maybe it'll mean that the game won't come out on Steam right away, but everyone pretty much has the Microsoft store installed so it's not like they'll have to share their data with yet another greedy storefront. (Of course, this would mean that Microsoft would have to improve some things with their PC store, like separating how it treats Apps and Games so that we can actually access our our freakin' game directories. (Actually- fix that anyway Microsoft; goddamn!)

That's enough speculation, let's talk about the good and potential benefits this deal has going for it right now! First of all, this makes it so that all Bethesda games are now becoming permanent main-stays of Microsoft Gamepass, yet further increasing the value of this ludicrously inexpensive service. What's more, this really shows up Sony who have voiced how they don't see the value of making a similar service for the Playstation. (It's not 'sustainable' in their eyes) This also means that future Bethesda games will launch on Gamepass for no extra charge. (my mind struggles at how incredible that sounds.) Whatsmore, this deal puts Obsidian and Bethesda under the same roof which, as many have pointed out, opens the path for a potential Fallout New Vegas 2. (Such a proposition deserves a blog of its own to go over.) Now Obsidian were directly asked on Twitter about this possibility and they merely offered a shrug emoji, which is a good as tacit approval if I squint my eyes really tightly!

It's with tentative and provisional optimism that I fall in favour of this new acquisition. Knowing where Bethesda currently sits as a wounded-reputation studio, next to the struggling Xbox studios, I think that hardship will birth a positive growth for both parties. Although I guess I could be totally off-base and this'll end up spawning an age of power-drunk studio tyranny on Microsoft's end, but I'm choosing to ignore that very real possibility in the hopes that doing so makes it somehow less likely. I just ultimately hope for a future where games aren't split down the middle in console battle lines and Bethesda get held to some quality assurance standards. Here's hoping this is the advent of one of those policies, if not both.