I recommend: Into the Breach

 Once more old Friend

You know I am a sucker for not taking advice. I cannot count how many times I've heard people sing the praises of Into the Breach, even watched reviews were people played the darn thing, and yet it seems I never listen because I didn't play it. I looked at the thing and somehow managed to convince myself that it looked too 'complex' and 'intimidating', but now I think about it that must have been self conjured roadblocks that I decided just from hearing the premise. But now I'm in a more enlightened state, and more importantly I've started watching Neon Genesis Evangelion, this mech themed rougelite seemed a lot more accessible. So yes, I literally only started playing 'Into the Breach' this year and am in the middle of having my extended delayed adoration for it, but this is a series built for just such moments and so here we are. For anyone who still hasn't given it a shot, let me tell you why this inexpensive indie romp is worth your time.

First let me get to the premise and you'll start to understand why I assumed this game would be a lot more intimidating than it it. (Or maybe you won't and I'll just end up looking like a big baby, either way) The world is currently under attack by subterranean insect alien-monsters called the Locu- I mean the Vek. You're job is to protect a chain of corporation-run islands that are researching a way to defeat them by piloting huge role-specific mechs and having tactical battles in populated city areas wherein you try your hardest to limit civilian casualties. It's a unforgiving battle where mistakes can cost you hundreds of lives as well as precious resources and the cost of failure is the end of the entire world. In such a scenario there is nothing you can do but pick anyone surviving of your crew to travel back in time and try the whole thing again. Yep, the stakes are that huge. You're literally dealing with the destruction of the entire world across multiple timelines. Sounds pretty heavy, right? Well, actually I'm being honest when I say that Into the Breach is one of the most accessible and easy to play Rougelites I've ever touched.

Straight away the game gives you a set of easy to understand Mech units and a comprehensive checkerboard to fight your enemy on, and the game never really muddies it's mechanics for that point onwards. (With some slight exceptions, but nothing that felt truly fun breaking.) As a unit you have two actions, a move and an attack, (in that order) therefore you're incentivised to use those moves in order to destroy the enemies in your area over small 5 turn battles across very manageable battle boards. The quirk comes in that you also have to protect the many civilian buildings on each map which the monster will aim for pretty much just as often as they'll aim for you. Subset Games ensured you'd care by attaching a global energy meter to the top of the screen which goes down with every destroyed building and once it reaches zero, your mechs can no longer function and the timeline is doomed. That bar is pretty much your only total balance check, and you can get away with any other blunder as long as that bar doesn't hit zero. Thus, you have your game pretty much laid out.

Units are very easy to come to grips with but, in the manner of all great gameplay systems, intriguing and rewarding to master. Take the starting units for instance; you have a Mech that simply walks up to the enemy and punches them, forcibly moving them a square in the process; another which is a tank that can fire once in a straight line to a similar knockback, and a final artillery mech which can also fire in a line but can do so over buildings, and it's shot knocks all surrounding enemies away from the damage site. Very straightforward, as I find myself belabouring quite a bit, but the nuance comes in the utility and complications of this moveset. For example, all of the attacks for these mechs just happen to knock back enemies, well that can be used to move an enemy that was lined up to destroy a building so that his shot goes wide. What's more, if that enemy is pushed against another object, be that building, mountain or another enemy, they take extra damage. (And so does the object)

As you'll likely have been picking up from the screenshots and my description, this all makes the grid layout of the game extremely apt and useful, because you'll be spending a lot of time figuring out ways to, not necessarily kill all Vek, but manipulate them so that they're no longer a problem, or even so that they attack each other. And considering that over the 5 turn matches new Vek Units pop out of the ground all the time, you'll be needing to be thinking bigger than just brute forcing your enemy anyway. This is when strategy starts to take over as the complicating factor in the game design, and it creates a experience that's intrinsically enjoyable. I suppose that's what I'm coming to really appreciate about the Rougelite genre of games; it's all about intrinsic skills that you carry through, with the extrinsic baubles just becoming bonuses.

That being said, there is that randomised element which makes these Rougelite games so unpredictable and thus fun. On the base level there's the map themselves which change each run, but even deeper than that you have the bonus challenges for each map. Bonuses are the beating heart of the gameplay, because as much you want to balance killing Vek with protecting the public, having to take a hard decision for promise of spendable currency can really stick a backbone behind the whole thing. The Currency, reputation, is only spendable at the end of each island and used to buy new tools for your mechs and upgrades for old ones. It's perhaps the most important resource you need to rely on if you want to shift the tide and face the ever more difficult waves of enemies, thus juggling these challenges can sometimes override your obligation to protect the defenceless as heartless as that sounds. It can be as insignificant as choosing not to knock an enemy out of the way of a building in order to destroy a dam with that shot, but it'll reward you with reputation and cost almost a hundred people their lives. The real question is whether you can sacrifice that hit to your energy, and that's another way in which this game manages to keep concepts simple while the ideas behind them give them legitimate weight. (Of course, once you've abandoned 12 timelines straight and are autopiloting the first two islands; that's also the kind of decision you'll make without batting an eyelid. Oh, desensitisation...)

The best part of Into the Breach is how pick and play it is. I can literally go through a full playthrough of the game in under 50 minutes, maybe even less if I'm being particularly stupid this run and get everyone killed. (Or rather, abandon the timeline the second things get a little too out of hand.) Replay value is lent simply by the randomised elements to the bonus system and maps as well as the unlockable new Mech squads who completely shift up the gameplay in ludicrously significant ways. I particularly love the Rusting Hulks who specialise in generating smoke clouds that instantly cancel enemy attacks. They get really interesting in the way that a storm generator can make these clouds do damage at the end of each round, thus making them a great passive-damage class. (Plus, I love seeing a map fill up with so many clouds that the enemy has no choice but to stop targeting buildings and come after me. It makes me feel like I've really managed to stump the AI)  But then there's also the Blitzkrieg that rely on chain attacks, the Frozen Titans who are masters of locking down the enemy or the Hazardous Mechs who damage themselves as much as the enemy. (And more, of course) So many different playstyles lie in the squad you pick alone that the diversity really throws hours more playtime onto this already fairly rich game.

Into the Breach is like a game of randomly generated puzzle solving, and if you've read my several Hitman blogs you know how much I love a puzzle game. Whatsmore, the game looks great with it's classic stylisation and fun use of colours. (Saving the world from it's impending insectile doom has never been so fun!) As with Heat Signature, playing so many games of different genres ends up making me really appreciate these smaller games that offer a great bite-sized experience that I take a chunk of whenever I want to without having to sit down and mark off an entire night to it. I still love my hundred hour RPGs, don't get me wrong, but quality variety will always have a place around me. And Into the Breach is one of the most high-quality, ingeniously crafted indie games I've ever played. I definitely recommend you give it a go and see just how much mileage this deceptively simple title can grant you,

Final Fantasy 7 Remake: The series?

Final Fantasy overload!

Tetsuya Nomura must be a trip to work with. At that base level, no matter where you look at the guy, there's no dying he has oodles of talent. He's the director of the much beloved Kingdom Hearts franchise afterall and has turned that into one of the longest running video game crossover events of all time. (No doubt contributing to the hefty Square Enix coffers in the process) But my god does he know how to drag things out. At this point I'm literally at a loss. Is this intentional? Is this some malady of genius? How in the heck did Final Fantasy 7 Remake get to be an episodic adventure with this many moving parts to it? You'd have thought that the Square guys would have learned their lesson when they gave him Final Fantasy Versus 13 and it took 10 years to make. (And then became XV) That's not 10 years for Nomura to make, mind you; no they had to pull him from the project because it took so long. I'm not entirely convinced that the episodic nature of Final Fantasy 7 Remake wasn't some desperate compromise to get this game out once Square management saw him naming his directing successor in his will.

I say this because at this point it it's far past speculation; Final Fantasy 7 is Tetsuya's new series of games in the same vein that Kingdom Hearts was. He's going to be telling this story for the next decade at least, and before you dare imply there's not enough content for that, oh don't you worry! At the recent Playstation Play event he made it clear how that is absolutely no problem for him and his 'adaptation' process. Final Fantasy 7 Remake will be celebrating the imminent death of it's exclusivity with a PS5 glowup that comes along with a brand new chapter called Final Fantasy VII: Intergrade. And yes, I mean 'Brand New' as in 'none of this story was in the original FF7, what are we doing, argh!' Yep, not content with simply straying from the script, Tetsuya is doing a Koishbe Rohan and just straight rewriting that. Heaven's Door or no. New chapter here, new character there; Aerith turns out to be moonlighting as Sephiroth and turns into a magical three-winged angel in the third act. Anything's on the table now!

So what could this new content possibly bring to warrant being attached to the storyline before a chapter 2? Well, Yuffie Kisharagi of course! That's right, the Wutai princess and everyone's favourite Materia thief is sneaking into the picture for a brand spanking new adventure in- Midgar? Is- is that allowed? Yuffie's been to Midgar before meeting the group? That seems slightly off to me, as though it's an example of a speed-running sequence break or something. I thought part of her development was in that she was inexperienced and hadn't visited the far off corners of the world yet; but to be fair I haven't played the original for years so I might be misremembering that. Either way, who cares; the final character has been added to truly bring the FF roster to full power and I'm so happy I can almost overlook how this spells disaster for anyone who wanted to see this remake finished before their grandchildren were born. Nomura's in this one for the long haul boys. (Yes, I know Cait Sif also isn't in the roster yet. But can I just say, screw Cait Sif. He's creepy, his whole deal is creepy and I couldn't care less if- wait I forgot about Cid. and Vincent. Dammit...)

Hmm? You're not yet sold that this is an indication of an impending barrage of FF 7 content, the likes of which cannot even be conceived of? In that case, allow me to introduce you to the other titles of the event. What about 'Final Fantasy 7: The First Solider'; The Battle Royale. Oh you did not misread me, dear viewer, I said Battle Royale. What's that? You thought the trend of endless Battle Royale games based on every intellectual property was dying? How foolish: it's only just begun! Now be forced to live in a world that takes place several decades before the beginning of FF7 and seems to be following the members of SOILDER- killing each other I guess? Not really sure how this is supposed to fit into the storyline, truth be told. Sort of sounds like a waste to even reveal the time setting. But that's nothing compared to their second game.

Okay, so bare with me while I try to wrap me head around this because I hardly get it myself. So it seems that Square are also releasing an IOS linear chapter-based turn-based version of FF7 that's animated in a style similar to, yet fundamentally different from, the original game. The big difference being that when the battles start it enters into a turn-based rendering of the remake's graphics rather than a voxel stage. Now, and here's the part I don't understand; apparently this remake is going to consist of the entire original storyline, which doesn't really make any sense because the Remake both isn't done yet and is stepping away from that storyline. It's also going to contain, apparently, Advent Children, Crisis Core, Before Crisis and Dirge of Cerberus. Now considering that Advent Children is a movie, Before Crisis is a 2004 mobile game, Crisis Core is a PSP game and Dirge of Cerberus is a third person shooter; I'm a little confused. Oh it's called 'Ever Crisis' by the way. 

Are they telling us that this a kinda faithful remaster of Final Fantasy VII heading our way along with remastered versions of every single piece of canonical FF7 content? Are they going to rebuild all of the content to run in an 'abridged' manner similar to how FF7's base game will appear in this pack? How will that work when Advent Children is a movie? Or is it just a compilation pack? There are so many questions to answer, but even in our current enlightened state I have to admit; this is kinda looking too good to be true. I say that to mean; a lot of these other FF7 game are hard to get our hands on now due to the constant evolution of hardware. Dirge and Crisis Core are made for consoles that aren't supported or made anymore and I have no clue how one would even go about getting a ROM for a 2004 mobile game working. Bringing them all together in whatever form it turns out to be is quite simply valuable. Incredibly valuable. I wonder how much Square will need to gouge potential buyers in order to justify this level of effort to themselves.

And then there's the issue to bring up of this game apparently coming to IOS and Android. What's that all about? From the sounds of it, this is looking to be a rather meaty compilation collection; shouldn't it come to actual consoles and PC? I've heard people compare this to Final Fantasy XV's 'Pocket Edition', and that would make sense if that's how the base game is going to shape up; (and I suspect it is) but even that ended up going to PC in no time, so what's this suddenly mobile favouritism about? I'm simply asking because the amount of value on offer here stands to seriously skewer the mobile marketplace more than Square already does on the daily. That's a place for low effort shovel-ware, not lovingly crafted compilation pieces! Have mercy on the app stores, Tetsuya; think about the bottom line!

But you know what the worst thing is about this impending and unending wave of Final Fantasy VII? The part that really grinds my gears to mush? I'm here for it. Every single little bit of it, I'm down. I'll be honest; I love the world of Final Fantasy VII and always get left with that feeling of sadness whenever we have to leave a world of FF characters behind. Getting to see them all again, going on so many new adventures alongside old one's that shape up differently to how you remember: that's very special to me. Even as the Final Fantasy franchise moves on and XVI comes out, I'll always have more room in my heart for VII's endless journey and the plight of Cloud Strife. I know that absolutely makes me part of the problem, but darn it I can't help myself. You got me, Nomura. You got me.

Pyra/Mythra in Smash!

"I'll burn you"

I'm forever a-curious when it comes down to characters who get added to the storied roster that is the Super Smash Bros. line-up; because it truly is a position of honour to sit at. Getting recognised as a figure of enough universal acclaim to join the world's biggest gaming crossover is flattering by any regard, and though we've still been denied our Waluigi that we so rightly deserve, the sheer number of interesting new characters that have been added through DLC has almost made up for that glaring omission. Additionally, the love and care that have gone into realising all of these characters is quite often second to none and indicative of the development team's commitment to celebrating the source materials as much as possible. I'm being serious, when it comes to Smash characters literally every single move and animation is a reference to something or other and for a fan to analyse them heavily it can be quite the treat to see what was included and where it comes from. And for this latest character; I am defiantly a fan.

'Xenoblade Chronicles 2's two-for-one waifu Pyra and Mythra have joined the fight; what a shocker! Honestly, I was half expecting it to be Lady Dimitrescu considering how much that character has blown up in popularity, but Mythra and Pyra were similar standouts in Xenoblade and so I love to see them here. Although, it does sort of suck to see that, yet again, the number of crossover franchises remains unchanged. We've already got Shulk from Xenoblade Chronicles 1, so I'm a little bummed we're picking from Xenoblade yet again. That being said; I'm not about to scold Nintendo when they went ahead and put a character I actually like into Smash, so I'd like to celebrate a bit.

First of all, I find it curious and strange that a decision was made to do a whole melodramatic video pertaining to her invitation. the whole 'One day Pyra disappeared' thing was really kind of odd, and I don't just mean that because it does a bit of a sin for JRPGs; in that it features every single companion from the game. You can't do that! Part of the fun of JRPGs is going through the storyline and learning which of the colourful enemies you're facing will end up becoming your friend by the end. (Yes, I know they're literally all shown on the back of the case but I'm pretty disciplined so I ignored that.) However, I suppose that the very nature of the character meant that there was going to be some spoilers, especially given that the character is interchangeable with Mythra despite the fact that Mythra's reveal was pretty much the climatic 1st act conclusion. That being said, I suppose we're sort of past the statue of spoilers given how the game is nearly 5 years old now, similar to how no one's up in arms about how Shiek from Smash was a transformation state for Zelda despite that being a secret reveal in her source game. Huh, they went and make Shiek an entirely separate character in future Smash games? Well are we spoiling or not?

Either way, I thought the video was rather cute, if foreboding, with Rex being unceremoniously abandoned and left pining for his girlfr- I mean, number one Blade. The only thing that hurt me to my very essence was the fact that I had to listen to the English VO's for the whole trailer. Now no offence to the English cast, they did what they were told, but when I played Xenoblade Chronicles 2 I almost quit the game because I couldn't stand how badly suited their voices were. I mean okay, Rex sort of fits in a kind of 'scrappy-little-kid-who-was-always-told-he'd-never-amount-to-anything-before-being-dragged-into-this-wild-adventure-of-whimsy,-friendship-and-love' kind of way, but Nia was so wrong it made me want to die. She is a character that embodies 'Tsundere' and is a girl-cat literally called 'Nia'. (as in 'Nyah'. Get it?) If you can't play off at least one of those stereotypes, then you're doing it wrong! Then, like the guys at Nintendo read my freakin' mind, I got an actual Email from Nintendo telling me about the existence of a free Japanese VO pack. (I know I've told that story before, but I still love how bizarre it turned out at the end there.) For this DLC I really hope that the Japanese VO's are an option. But I'm about 90% sure they won't be.

Eagle eyed players might have noticed right away that Smash decided to add something to Pyra and Mythra's design. Mythra lost the little a window over her bust and Pyra has these new, actually pretty cool looking, metallic battle tights. I'd imagine this is in order to fit some sort of Nintendo mandate that only a certain percentage of skin can be shown, (Pyra certainly did show a decent amount of leg and I'd be lying if I didn't say that Mythra's bodysuit is pretty eye-popping at first sight in the game) which is likely the same reason why poor Mai Shiranui has landed on the permanent Smash blacklist. (I get it, Smash is a formal event that has dress rules, say no more.) Aside from that these characters are identical to how they appeared in the game and I have to put my hands together at how seamlessly Smash's style incorporates all these different character designs. Everyone goes together so perfectly you'd have think they'd all been designed by the same art style. Smash is just so universal in so many ways.

When it comes to the moveset I actually only realise now that the team had a rather straightforward roster to choose from. Both heroines have defined movesets and animations from their battle arts that can easily be looked to for inspiration. Flame Nova, Prominence Revolt, they're all there, and I think the boomerang sword move comes from one of the lesser como arts chains. Mythra's moveset looks much more my speed, however, with her actually shooting enemies with her sword-gun. I also love the fact that the team managed to work in Mythra's foresight as an actual, almost Mortal Kombat-esque, dodge move. In the Xenoblade game it was dressed up as this incredibly powerful ability that allowed Mythra and Rex to enter a sort of Star Platinum speed mode and easily dodge attacks, but in gameplay it just translated into a stat boost. This time it's a real thing and I love it. Finally, I'm glad that Rex gets to come in for the final Smash moves giving him some of the spotlight. (Two final smashes for one character? That's got to be unique, no?)

As with every single DLC character this will also come with a 'season of Xenoblade' which I imagine will translate into another hundred spirits that are all based off of the various optional blades one can acquire on their journey. (Although some of those optional Blades were already Spirits so I wonder about how much material the team can actually draw from.) Plus, there's the new stage for which the team must have realised they already had a huge titan island from Shulk's stage and instead opted to stick us on Gramps back. (I love how the entire cast make cameo appearances on the stage too, I can't wait to just watch them interact with one another like they never got to in-game thanks to Gramps' shrinking.) Yeah, as you can likely tell I'm a huge Xenoblade Chronicles 2 nut so this entire reveal was like nutmeg to me. I recognise that some people are gonna be peeved (another sword fighter? Are you serious!) But I'm happy at the very least.

Of course, the only question now is who can possibly be next for the Smash lineup and what will they bring to the table? I'm still not ruling out Alcina Dimitrescu, although now I think about it she might be too tall for the stages. (You can't just 'make her shorter'; height's the entire point!) Personally I'd love for one of Sony's characters to get a look in, but Sony are too drunk on the misconception that their franchises are varied enough for in-house crossovers to so much as entertain that idea. (So likely no Kratos anytime soon.) My realistic bet is that it's going to be Resident Evil character, because we've already seen Smash/Resident Evil crossover through spirits without an actual fighter. My unrealistic hopeful bet is Dio. Hey, he showed up in some games, alright! There was 'Eyes of Heaven' and- and 'Jump Force'! (Ew. I said it's name.) I just want some more Jojo in my life, is that too much to ask for? Whatever the case, I guess we'll find out before the year's out. (This games' never gonna stop getting DLC fighters, is it?)

Nintendo and Organised Crime: the Story

Not as innocent as you thought

What can one say about the big N? They're that celestial constant in the gaming solar system, there from the beginning and lasting till the end, from their halls have hailed some of the most classic franchises ever to grace this Earth, and their influence on the art of game design is second to none. Whenever you pick up a modern game you can practically feel their influence imbued in the very stones. Such a wonderous body are they. Like a magnificent father. If only we all could be so grossly incandescent. Thus it's hardly a surprise to anyone that when a docu-series is going to made out of a games company, they would be the obvious choice. The only other might be Atari, but theirs is a story that feels covered to death; I think we'd all appreciate something fresh. And as the trailer for 'Playing with Power: The Nintendo Story' dictates; we know the name, but we don't know the whole story. (Personally I'd call that heavily into question, I really do know an obscene amount about Nintendo's past, including a great many things I can assure you won't be in the documentary. But sure, tease away.)

Firstly, I was surprised that this documentary had the gall to tease Nintendo's pre-gaming origin of making 'playing cards' as they say. Yeah, playing cards. 'Scuse me friend, but being an aficionado of Kiryu and Majima's bloodless journeys around Japan, I recognise Hanafuda cards when I see them. So let me pre-empt the fact that this documentary is going to gloss over the single most interesting part of Nintendo's history, by telling you the real origins of Nintendo. (If you don't know this story, then hold on because this is about to get wild) So Hanafuda is a game that utilises special playing cards that feature no numbers but rather have images on them. Images are matched thematically in order to create a collection which scores points, and it's this whole thing. It's harder to explain than it is to play, however, I assure you. Hanafuda isn't the only game that you can play with these cards, there's also Koi-Koi (Which is fun because you get to shout "Koi" when you're winning) and so many others that I can't be bothered to get into right now. They were also created as a loophole for organised crime.

Okay, maybe that's being a little dramatic. As it happens the Yakuza got really big into card gambling about a century and a bit back and though it made them a lot of money, it naturally drew in a lot of the other vices that criminal organisations tended to attract. At some point regulations were drawn to limit the spread of gambling, and that which naturally followed, but the effect was... mitigated through the wily wills of whoever it was that invented Hanafuda cards. Whilst other playing cards seemed easy enough to slap a ban on, Hanafuda cards seemed too abstract to gamble with, so the government left it alone. But where there's a will there's a way and thematic matching images and themes to create matches that confer to a pre-established point value is how the game is played now, so I assume that's how they did it back then. I'm not an expert though, don't quote me on that. However, as it turns out when you have an entire card game that is mainly popular among those who want to partake in illegal gambling, i.e. Gokudō, suddenly most legitimate card companies don't want anything to do with it. (Weird how that works out.)

Or at least, that's how you end up seeing things if you're a little baby boy. Not Fusajirō Yamauchi, however. That man just looked at the demand and say "What are ya all idiots or something? That there's what we call a gap in the market, if allaya big cowardly chickens ain't got the guts then I guess it's time I showed everyone how it's dun" (I might possibly be paraphrasing. Or making that entire dialogue up altogether) The point is he opened up a little shop called 'Nintendo Koppai' and sold the absolute heck out of those Hanafuda cards, ensuring that the Japanese Yakuza would have plenty of materials with which to popularise their gambling rings for generations to co- woah, wait a second. That almost sounds like I'm trying to say that Nintendo very much got it's start as a company due to a symbiotic relationship with the Yakuza... put that in your little propaganda documentary...

Of course, that couldn't remain the case forever. And as we sit today, with Nintendo as the oldest still existing video game company, (technically, although Atari was arguably in the gaming market before them, Nintendo was around longer) they're completely family friendly and have reformed their image. And we all just handily forget how it was Yakuza ties that allowed them to diversify and grow into a staple around all of Japan because it's convenient to. (Although, remembering how draconian Nintendo gets about their IPs, you do see glimmers of that no-nonsense hard-criminal spine every now and then) But just because Nintendo are all 'squeaky clean' now doesn't mean that I don't have any more stories that these guys definitely won't put in their documentary, have no doubt about that!

What about that time when Nintendo lost the rights to what would become the biggest and most influential RPG of all time? (Note: I didn't say JRPG, because I suppose that would be Dragon Quest) You see, Nintendo's stubborn insistence on sticking to cartridge based systems when disc drives were available began to become a real problem for a little studio called Square. I could write a whole blog about the many other little knives that wedged into this relationship, but that was really the core issue that kept being drawn up. After it was decided by the team that they wanted to move forward with the tech and memory at their fingertips, Square ended up moving their game to Playstation. This betrayal left Nintendo to put the screws on a another studio they had under the belt to get an RPG out of them, but that led to strained relationships (and apparently rampant miscommunication) that led to that studio and Nintendo parting ways. (That farewell might have also had something to do with said developer making a very murder-heavy game in the middle of Nintendo's most puritanical days.) That game Square was working on? It was Final Fantasy 7. And that studio Nintendo drove off? DMA Design, later to become Rockstar North. (Double whammy. That's the kind of missed opportunity that'd keep me up at night.)

All of this isn't to say that I dislike Nintendo. Or at least, not most of the time anyway. They're still a bastion of the gaming world to whom I hold a great amount of reverence. And I'll count them among the only big game makers in the world that have a consistent track record of delivering polished and mostly high-quality gaming experiences every single year. And that's not just from pumping out so many games that they hit jackpots; the philosophies the company runs by and espouses seem to be diamond for the development process, as their games are usually incredibly well put together. They are the company to whom I owe Zelda as well, which means there's no end to the amount of creative dividends I owe them because Zelda's legacy is pretty much my entire world.

I just like to poke and point fun every now and then, especially when a 'family friendly' documentary rears it's head with the gall to try and pretend like it's going to blow my very perception of Nintendo out the water. Sorry guys, Nintendo themselves already did that. To think, a century ago their space would be packed-up with tough tatted Yakuza soldiers all-day and now they're opening up a 'Super Nintendo World' for kids in Universal. How the winds of fortune do be changing. It's just a wonder why Nintendo doesn't remember it roots enough to let Ryū ga Gotoku onto their storefronts. Come on guys, pay your spiritual predecessors some respect!

GoldenEye returns

 I found his weakness

Gaming history holds a great many nexus points wherein pervasive ideas have sprung. Little nodes in the web of gaming that set the standard of what some new system or idea could be, thus dictating how every game since will be made. It's a consequence of the nature of creative industries, in that ideas are generally shared built upon throughout the years. (Something that Warner Bros. Interactive seems intent on quenching with their latest copyright, but I've already delved into that whole situation previously) As such we have a number of 'progenitor' games that we can point to as instant classics because they, alongside other advances, pioneered a style of gameplay that's now commonplace. Shenmue, for example, bought us the tradition of day and night cycles and NPC schedules, Wolfenstein 3D bought us our first 3D shooter environment, Alien: Resurrection defined the now universal control scheme of first person shooters. (However that last game is admittedly no where near as popular as the other examples.) And more to the point of this blog, GoldenEye 007 popularised competitive PVP and is just an all-round beloved game.

Bought to us in 1997 to remind us all that no matter how far back we look, they'll always be some rare examples of good movie tie-in games, (Although as the movie was 2 years earlier, I suppose you could say that the 'tie in' title is debatable.) Goldeneye has been long considered one of Rare's greatest games. It presented a comprehensive and fun campaign, characterised one of the most popular movie heroes of all time and, as I mentioned earlier, pretty much wrote the model for multiplayer games in the years to come. But let me not drag credit away from where it's due, much of this game really did change the way other titles would be made outside of mere multiplayer. Specifically I find that to be true in the level design which, through a process that one design themselves called 'clumsy', focused on being interesting first and functional second. I'd say this not only helped inspire some other beloved FPS' like the widely overlooked Timesplitters franchise, but perhaps even contributed to modern level design standards. So why is that we're only hearing about a potential remaster for the game now?

Of course it must be noted, there was an actual remake eventually made for GoldenEye, but that game came with the incredibly odd caveat that Peirce Brosnan's face was replaced with Daniel Craig's. That alongside several story changes, reworked levels and- okay it was more of a retread of the idea of making a GoldenEye game rather than a remaster of the classic N64 title. A proper remaster was however, in the works for a time, which just makes sense considering the fact that the game had actually already inspired a sequel from within Rare. Only, that sequel couldn't legally feature James Bond or his stories because Rare didn't own them, and so was born Joanna Dark and the Perfect Dark games. (Good luck on that AAA sequel, Microsoft, hope it doesn't turn into too much of a predictable disaster) Coming back to remaster the old classic for the Xbox Live arcade seemed like the perfect move in the late 2000's now that Rare was owned by Microsoft, with the only outlying factor being that the original was sort of a Nintendo property.

As such, development on the Remaster apparently went through before Nintendo has been told of the deal, and if you're foreseeing disaster then you've a sharper eye for such things than the Microsoft heads who neglected to let the developers know this. To be fair, it was assumed that Nintendo wouldn't have a problem with this for whatever reason, which in hindsight sounds a little naïve knowing how straight draconian Nintendo can be with their old games. Development was halted right at the finish line when negotiations started to get this done, but from what I heard some leaks of the project caused Nintendo to go nuts and pull the plug on the whole thing. Honestly, I can't imagine why this would be the case, given that the game was so obviously close to being done that this leak couldn't have been too consequential, (Leading me to believe there may have been other factors involved and Nintendo merely scapegoated the leak as a handy Casus Belli) but I guess those are the sorts of fine details that are doomed never to be known outside of Nintendo HQ.

But then, how do we know all this? And more specifically, how do I know that the game is in such a polished state to be nearly sellable? Well, that would be because as recently as this year someone posted footage of the game in action to prove it's existence. And then, to put a cherry on top of the cake, another soul leaked the ROM file of the game onto the Internet for anyone who travels in those sorts of circles. (Don't mind me whilst I fire up Retroarch... I'm kidding, anyone who might be reading this with legal power behind them. I would never condone a legally grey action like that.) From the accounts of those that have played it, however, we know it to be a mostly complete touch up remaster of the classic that retains the charm of the classic that so many grew up with. (Not me though. That was way before my time.)

Visually the remaster does a great job of retaining the exact visual style of the original with significant resolution improvements and detailing. Specifically, one might note how 007 actually appears to have facial features in the remaster, and if you squint your eyes and do a handstand it almost looks like Brosnan's mug too. Experts and nostalgics have praised the game as being 'the best remaster you will never play', and I even heard some talk that small servers have been sourced to actually play the multiplayer once more. (Not sure if anything has come of that. Multiplayer games are so oversaturated nowdays anyway) Unfortunately I've heard no confirmation about whether or not this remaster would feature the rumoured 'All Bonds mode' which the original allegedly scrapped for licencing reasons. So I can only assume it's missing yet again. (Shame, I'd love to see who'd win in a brawl against Connery and Moore. As, I assume, would Alan Partridge) Although I hear Lazenby was never considered for the mode so I guess it would have disappointed anyway. (Bet they would have forgot David Niven too.)

It seems such a unexpected, yet curiously timely, development for these games to come out now, as we do live in the age of the remake/remaster. Pretty much every year we hear about another popular game franchise getting a touch up to some varying degree that it can honestly be pretty hard to spot when a new game in your favourite series has just been announced at first glance. Nier Replicant is getting a remaster, Mass Effect 1-3 are getting remasters, the old God of Wars are getting remasters, it only makes since that some of the old classics get the good treatment too. It's only a shame that the nature of the game makes for a proper remaster that goes the whole hog from ever likely hitting our consoles. Especially since the Bond licence has since moved on. This ROM file of dubious legality is likely the best we're ever going to get.

Although if there's one thing this does get me thinking about, it's how many other games have been cancelled at such an advanced state that someone, somewhere has a practically complete version of it sitting on a hardrive. I mean by all accounts this remaster is something of an outlier, even the developers themselves remarked on how easy the project was to fix up, but there's got to be some at least 50% done game out there which suffered the same premature fate. As a lover of gaming curio's, I'd love to see a few more of them float into the public space in the same manner that this and 'StarCraft: Ghost' did, because even if we can't play them I find their history to be just fascinating. 

Gearbox Bought out

 Egads, it's raining acquisition money out here!

I find it hard to formulate my thoughts on Gearbox, or at least in any manner that's consistent and reaches an actual conclusion. On one hand they are the creators of the spectacular Borderlands games, which I love, and on the otherhand they're propagators of some of the shadiest deals I've heard from the industry outside of Activision and EA. Their talent as creators is nigh on inspirational to a no-life like me, but their owner seems like a lunatic who's exploits are more volatile than anyone is his position has any right to facilitate. I want to get behind them and say that I consider Gearbox to be one of the good ones, but I can't quite cross that threshold and it irks me. All of this is to say that I honestly do not know whether it bodes well or ill that they've recently been acquired by THQ.

But first the good; THQ is one heck of a storied name in the industry and it's good to see them making big moves again! I for one, remember them back to some of my earliest gaming memories with the old WWE gamesand of course the classic Saints Row games, but it sort of feels like they've gotten a little lost under the waves in recent years. Don't get me wrong, the publisher still gets out some good games, I loved Desperados 3 and Kingdoms of Amalur ain't half bad, but there hasn't really been that flagship franchise which keeps their logo forever on my startup screen. Not really since Volition took their Saints Row franchise to the dark place. (Has it really been almost 8 years since Saints Row 4? Good god, I'm feeling the existential dread starting to creep up on me again!) Now that THQ has managed to secure Gearbox, a frankly huge studio in their own right, I can only imagine big things coming out of them. Or rather, they want to start making big things in the months to come because 1.3 billion in acquisition dollars demands to be recouped.

Which is why I find myself curious, just what is it that Gearbox have up their sleeve? I'd say that this is pretty much cold confirmation that there's some brand new franchise cooking up in Gearbox's oven, due to the fact that this deal is said to apply for the publishing of future brands and how 'Borderlands' will remain the provision of 2K games. Something big must be stirring for them, and considering how much money went into this deal I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't the start of many big changes. Right now Gearbox is in a pretty blessed position, with a new partner studio in tow and, incredulously, a blockbluster movie about their flagship franchise in the work with a frankly embarrassing amount of talent attached, I'd say this could be the dawn of a new age for Gearbox.

Gearbox hasn't really been a small developer, by anyone's estimation of what constitutes 'small', for a very long time, but they've never really been massive either. According to linkedin Gearbox Software boasts around 500-1000 employees, and whilst I'd say that's plenty for a few studios to operate, I'd wonder if sights aren't set a little higher. Bare in mind that everything I'm saying here is speculation, but I've always felt that Gearbox is one of those names that I expected to be as diverse and sprawling as Blizzard around about now, but they've stayed rather centralised. I always felt like there should be a whole bevy of profitable franchises practically oozing out of Gearbox's offices, but instead we've had but one and a few failed attempts at diversification. Duke Nukem, dud. Aliens, dud. Battleborn, unfortunately a dud. (I liked that game) Maybe now is the day that things start changing, and with THQ backing them perhaps there's the security in place for a bit more experimentation? (Well, lets be honest. More money typically means less experimentation. But at least some more unique AAA series' out of Gearbox, I think we'd all be happy for that.)

My only errant thoughts on the matter is "How is Randy Pitchford gonna mess this up?", because you know Randy is going to try something. The man is like an almost lovable clown who goofs up in all the right ways to make you laugh, but then you remember that he's a important man in charge of the livelihoods of hundreds of talented developers and then suddenly his gaffes don't seem as fun anymore. Let us not forget, for example, the accusations of mismanagement, the loss of sensitive company files (which he lost alongside his porn stash) and the alleged misappropriation of development fund which is legally not proven but it really does make sense given the state of the game which apparently suffered because of it. (Hint: rumours are it was Aliens Colonial Marines) Oh, and then there's just his unprofessional conduct which borders on childish at times. And then there's the fact that he's a magician. Never trust a magician. It's literally their hobby to fool you.

Provided that everything goes to plan, however, THQ could be be on the verge of quite the resurgence on the gaming scene. I mean just these past few years have been crazy for the amount of old IPs that THQ Nordic specifically has been snatching up, we've just been waiting for the studio to actually do something about them. Maybe now they'll have that manpower. They've recently acquired the IPs for Alone in the Dark, Gothic, Risen, Carmageddon (really?), Remnant: From Ashes, Biomutant, Darksiders, Destroy all Humans and, most importantly of all, Timesplitters! Oh god, imagine a Timesplitters from Gearbox! Imagine how absolutely brilliant that would be! Talk about the dream developer to revive one of my favourite franchises of all- oh they sold that IP to Deep Silver. Bummer.

Still, I would love to see Gearbox tackle any one of those former dead series', because we know what that team can do with FPS' but I personally would love to see their takes elsewhere. How would they bring their unique eye and charm to a horror setting like Alone in the Dark, or maybe a new Destroy All Humans game to bank off of the recent trend started by the remake. Am I playing around with my imagination a little here? Yes, but can you blame me?; there's a playground worth of toys now available to Gearbox through THQ and I'm itching to see them go nuts with it. Hell, even a cheap remake of Carmageddon run through the Gearbox studio is sure to have something wild and crazy done to it, I just want to see Gearbox branch out a bit. (Unless THQ decide to buy back Timesplitters and Gearbox want a go at that; that marks the one exception I would jump over the moon for.)

At the end of the day, however, this is really just another billion dollar acquisition that marks the industry getting just the little bit smaller. I'm sure it's everybody's dream to get snapped up by a big publisher with unlimited pockets (Seriously, 1.3 billion! What the heck?) but I wonder if it's good for the creative spirit of the AAA world. Maybe Gearbox isn't the greatest example of creative excellence, the last brand new game out of them which wasn't an FPS was 2011's 'Aliens: Infestation', but it's still indicative of a culture of market consolidation. But I've gotten to the point where I'm waxing lyrical about market trends, which means this little diatribe is getting seriously off-track. Overall, Congrats to Randy on his impending third mansion, I'm sure he needs it.

Six days in Fallujah

Here's to treading on eggshells.

Fiction in entertainment has, and ideally will always have, an interesting relationship with reality. Most of the time it's a union of silent acknowledgement but never locking eyes as we absorb the heart and soul of experiences and observations whilst changing this or that to appear fresh. Some physiatrists and philosophers over the years have used such to explain that there are no new ideas, only those that we reinterpret from existing concepts in nature. I've always maintained that no matter how far we try to stride from it, the real world forms the backbone of fiction, but with that comes a certain level of risk when you weigh how much you want to lean towards reality and how much into the imagined. Political leanings can become volatile very easily, and can offend even easier, and most of the time all you're trying to do is give more substance to your story only to end up detracting from your very audience. Things get even more tricky, however, when you actually try to portray real events within a fictional setting.

Gaming, specifically, is always going to be a tough platform to sell the translation of real events, because it inherently comes with the negative connotation that one is 'trivialising' the event due to the juvenile stigma around games. Just take into account that one moment for 'Detroit Become Human' which depicts the young girl Alice getting threatened by her father, with the player having to decide how to handle the situation without escalating things. That generated endless cries of outrage with people who seemed to be almost purposefully missing the point; this was in no way a situation being glorified but a harrowing event that was befalling the character. In no way was the portrayal in support of child abuse, as ridiculous as it even sounds having to make that point, but simply the association with games allowed for that stigma to set. 

To a much lesser extent, as well, you have the sexualised transsexual person in the in-universe Cyberpunk 2077 ad. Many people came out in arms about how the advertisement made them feel uncomfortable and was garish; which was the point. Night City is a world wherein corporations and advertisers hold no limits on selling sexuality to make their bucks, and this is just another example of the dystopian society that is Cyberpunk. Once again, this was not an example of such a thing being lionized, nor was it it part of the game's real-world marketing like some claimed in their articles, (truly baffled how they came to that conclusion.) It was an example of the worst case scenario, something that society shouldn't strive for. And yet, when people hold onto the stigmas of 'its a game', such an obvious contextualisation becomes quickly lost and outrage replaces it. It's quite jarring, as in both the examples I provided there would have been no such misguided outrage if these scenarios had appeared in TV shows or movies, (at least, not nowadays) showing that there's still a lot of growing up that needs to be done when it comes to the perception surrounding games. And that's a pretty important factor to consider when we talk about 'Six Days in Fallujah'.

So this is a game that has been considered 'the most controversial cancelled game of all time', but to be quite honest with you I'd never heard of it until it was recently uncancelled and given a new trailer. This here is a game that offers to take us into a war scenario, but not in the same manner as many WWII games; this here is a modern war scenario and one based off of a real event. This game is apparently going to bring Halo and Destiny talent together (Which seems odd as I thought Destiny was made by former Halo Devs; so aren't those titles redundant?) in order to create a tactical shooter telling the stories of the US military sweeping the city of Fallujah in a urban offensive against Al Qaeda. Yes, this is based upon real events and I'm dubious about how much of a good idea this is.

Yes, I know I was just talking about there needs to be a maturing about people's views towards stories in gaming, but there similarly needs to be a maturing of the creatives themselves in some departments. Telling a war story seems like something normal and done all the time when you consider the amount of World War 2 games on the market, but considering how much more cleanly defined the lines of contention were in that war, even approaching more contemporary wars is going to be a whole different affair altogether. So with an already much more volatile topic to hand, care must really be taken to ensure that no one is offended and integrity is maintained. Unfortunately, that integrity has already been worn rather recently through the machinations of a very popular war franchise making an almost cartoonishly dumb move.

I'm talking about the debacle where Call of Duty, in an effort to reboot their Modern Warfare brand to be even more edgy, callously took the name of a real American-responsible war crime and rewrote it with Russian forces being the villains. Of course we're all familiar with Activision's strange hatred for Russia, (considering the amount of games they've published with Evil Russians, it feels beyond a trope at this point) but going to such an extent like that is beyond tone deaf and honestly harming to the industry as a whole. How are you supposed to take any story seriously that tries to tell of a real conflict when it shares headroom with a game that plays revisionist history in the most ridiculous way? Even just looking at the thumbnail for 'Six days in Fallujah', that COD debacle was the exact first thing that jumped into my head and you can bet it's going to be the same for a lot of other eyes out there too. So is this really the right time to tell a story like this?

Right now all we have is a trailer that contains literally no gameplay to shift through, and the team seems to have gone to effort to include the people who were actually there for legitimacies sake; but will that be enough? I know that personally I really wouldn't want to be in the same sort of position as these developers are in right now, because it's like they're stepping through a minefield of potential controversies. Any slight perceived fault is sure to be blown out of proportion and the team can expect themselves to get raked over the coals. And do I blame Infinity Ward for this atmosphere? A bit. But until a project that really proves how video games can be respectful and truthful when addressing real topics is created, that stigma will always remain. Will this be that game? I certainly hope so.

As someone who will forever be a lover of the gaming genre, I'm of course biased so my thoughts about how respectful the game ultimately will be is moot. And honestly, it's probably out of the hands of the experts also, because even though some real people were bought in on the project their opinions will mean nothing against the rapid hoard if they deem this game unworthy. I can't say I know what imaginary boxes the final product will have to tick in order to pass through the court of public opinion unscathed, but I'd imagine that whatever they are, they'll also come with their own fair share of luck. And so I will come out now and say that I hope for the best on this project, even if I don't actually play it myself because I'm not the biggest fan of tactical shooters. I just hope the team realise how this project is bigger than them in two regards, in that it depicts the lives of real people and that it will dictate how people treat serious games for a good long while.

I never got Life is Feudal

 And now I guess I'll never have to

Ever now and then I ruminate on the fads that just passed me by, caught between the dual thoughts of 'maybe I'm missing out' and 'maybe it was never meant to be.' As someone who, as a rule, never lets regret stay for tea, my reflections are never long, but they do probe. Maybe if I were a more accepting person, with wider taste and appreciation, I'd be able to love this thing that everyone else seems to love; but I suspect the truth is just that there's some preferences that I'll never understand. (As hard as that is to swallow for someone who has forced himself to play and find something he likes about every single genre he doesn't naturally take to. Heck, I'm currently playing 3 of the best rougelikes I could find in order to brainwash myself into liking those games.) In point of today's blog; I've never really understood the mass appeal that folk have to the medieval time period. Like what's up with that?

Okay, that's not entirely true; I understand the appeal of adventure and armoured combat; nobility, honour and other pretty lies all make for great fiction and I can sort of see where people come to it from that angle. But I'm a fan of completely new worlds and stories that defy my imagining; so I tend to lean towards worlds of fantasy with magical worlds, reality defying threats and unassailable monsters to challenge. The closest I get to the blunt reality of the straight medieval genre is the throes of Dark fantasy like Dark Souls, Diablo or that new 'King Arthur: Knights Tale' game which looks pretty cool. Yet all of those examples wouldn't fly with fans of hard medieval, oh no. Those fans aren't happy unless they live their lives in the dirt encrusted, historically accurate, hovels of the dark ages, match'd with an aged wife, to mete and dole unequal laws unto a savage race, that eat and sleep and hoard and know not they. Huh? Sorry I got a little lost there.

The point is that I don't see the appeal of roleplaying one of the crummiest periods of history with some of the worst general living conditions outside of active warzones. Even The Witcher, with all of it's revelling in mundane medieval life, recognised that the least interesting parts of it's world where that which concerned human toil, thus it focuses on the exploits of a literal hybrid so that no matter what dank filth-ridden hole you end up in there's a least a spark of whimsical intrigue there. There's none of the glory-driven fervour of the age of Vikings, pompous dichotomy of the colonial ages or aged grandeur of any of the classical periods. It's just humanity at it's least interesting. And yes, you might point out how I'm being obscenely dismissive in a manner more akin to older academic views on the period, which have now been eclipsed by ideas that some cultural value existed within what is rather begrudgingly labelled 'the Dark Ages', but that's just where I'm at; I can't help it.

Thus even though I heard a absolute great deal out of 'Life is Feudal' when it first launched, my mild interest in the survival genre could not extend to this iteration of it. By that time I was already beginning to become jaded with the sorts of games that forced one to collect resources on a loop forever; but the best did so in promise that, should you stick through it, the end will be worth it. 'Ark Survival Evolved' promised ridable mecha-dinosaurs, 'Subnautica' teased a world of underwater wonder and submarine mastery; Life is Feudal offered the modest life of a dirt farmer. How enticing. (No offense to the developers, but I already live with a toe above the poverty line, I don't really need to fantasise about it.) For a frankly surprising amount of people out there, however; Life is Feudal was everything they dreamed of.

That is to say, 'Life is Feudal: Your own', in which players were dropped into a 9 square kilometre map and allowed to go absolutely nuts in their quest to realise their manifest destiny and create a rudimentary medieval hamlet out of whatever you could find. In traditional Survival game fashion this meant lots of grinding for resources whilst you made the game you wanted to play in your head. (Again. The appeal of this genre is long lost on me.) The game did have some multiplayer built into it too, where up to 64 people could hop onto the same server for some large scale re-enactments and the like, but the networking was never really spectacular and this online games tended to chug worse than an alcoholic. What a shame, if only there was a way for lots of players to get together and play without constant crashing...

That's where 'Life is Feudal: The MMO' came into the picture and how I saw the game on my Steam homepage for literal years whilst the algorithm absolutely did not get the message that I couldn't be less interested. Neither, it would seem, were the fans because this MMO never quite took off. From accounts I here tell of simply insane grind to the extent were gathering took entire play sessions and crops grew in real time. (As in; taking months) Now as much as I exaggerate the mundane existence of playing Medieval games, I'm mostly being facetious in the knowledge that a lot of these games are intentionally sensationalist for the purpose of generating fun. Life is Feudal: MMO, however, appeared to have opted for a more 'simulator' approach to the genre, which is puzzling when you're talking about an MMO. Isn't the whole point to rope in as many players as possible? So why aim for such an incredibly niche subset of the genre that even fans of Medieval games aren't always immediately down for. (Some people out there have lives. Not all of them, but some.)

That might have something to do with the shutting down of the MMO version of this game just last month, although the team did declare that from their point of view this is down to a deal falling apart which makes server costs too high. (However, I'd imagine if the venture were worth the commitment, with players actually playing the thing, they wouldn't have erred towards closing the whole venture.) It is perhaps something of a shame because, judging from the snippets of gameplay I can look up, this title was actually incredibly robust for something of it's kin. The game seemed to run decently, look fine and, for the people who were actually on board for that sort of experience, I'm sure it played great too. It just fell for the pitfalls of trying to be a decently successful multiplayer game in a market that only really has space for the incredibly popular. Same mistake as a thousand hopeful developers before them and a thousand after.

Despite my disdain towards the topic, I actually was quite sad to hear the news, because a death in the gaming world always takes to my heart. I know that someone out there is crushed by this news and that's a shame. For consolation, however, the original game is still very much available and probably a lot more accessible to casual medieval fans, so perhaps it's not all doom and gloom. But let me still offer my condolences to Life is Feudal, and the enigma of the medieval genre that I find so darn perplexing. Maybe one day I fork out for 'Kingdom Come: Deliverance' and see what all the fuss was about. Huh? What do you mean, of course I'm a 'Mount and Blade' fan. How is that the exact same thing? I mean sure there's no magic, lots of talk of fiefdom, medieval siege units and- oh my god... I was one of them all along...

Scalping

 Taking that little off the top

Scalping, the dark underbelly of the free market that we all just persist with under the assumption that it's always been there and always will be. I mean, ever since scarcity has existed as a concept there would be those that exploit it; and if those very same exploiters can be the ones creating that scarcity, then it's just a self-fulfilling prophecy of awful. We've seen these sorts of practises come up whenever there are concert tickets for popular artists, designer brand apparel that earns it's value from exclusivity and, of course, physical video game tools because... You know, I think it's just because the world is terrible and we all need to be reminded of that fact every now and then. And if you think that I'm being a bit over the top with the disdain I hold for this very practice, well we're just going to have to agree to disagree because I simply despise those bottom-feeding wastrels who scrounge about in the online vermin pit in hopes of profiteering off of desperation. No love lost in the slightest.

Thus it's galling, for someone like me, to hear the practice bought up again and again in the gaming world, and not always for the actions of scummy opportunists. (Or rather, not the same scummy opportunist) I know I've done a blog on it before, but good god I cannot forget that nonsense with the Nintendo Super Mario 3D HD 3-game-pack and it's limited release window. This, I'll remind you, was a digital product and thus there's literally no excuse for it to be limited in sales. Nintendo just wanted an excuse to sell these decades old games at near premium price. But then, why achieve that by literally creating the perfect ecosystem for scalpers? Having unlimited supply as never got in the way of Nintendo's ridiculously overpriced old games before, why bother now? And you want to know the worst part? They literally did it again with a Dragon Quest game pack a year later; I know people try to say that Nintendo have really grown up in the gaming space, but I really do wonder about that sometimes.

I'm sure you know where I'm going with this, because it's the only place to go with this, but for the love of everything holy why are we still dealing with current gen console scalping? I mean sure, I understood for the first few weeks, heck even the first month, The Nintendo Switch had similar issues with scalping, but we're into the new year, it's February going on March; why are we still allowing this to happen? Some statistics have claimed, through extrapolation off some arguably imprecise numbers, that 15% of the PS5 consoles sold have been scalped. That's ridiculous; how could Sony allow this to happen? And, just to be clear, this isn't a Nintendo situation where I'm angry at them for the lack of supply. That's understandable in my eyes. The console is made up of so many specially made parts and we're in the middle of pandemic which limits production quantity; limited supply is to be expected. But in reflection there needs to be active attempts to squash the pandemic of self-righteous scalping weasels out there, otherwise all efforts to try and claw back some control of demand is only going to be undermined. (And I guess Microsoft share some blame too, but they're only selling half as many consoles as Sony so that just naturally makes them less relevant.)

And you know what? This might actually be the age where something is ultimately done about this scourge upon the market, and it might just be because of the same catalyst which is making it so bad for this instance. You see, it's bad enough trying to buy a luxury piece of expensive hardware and getting price-gouged over Ebay for it, but when that's happening in the middle of a world-wide financial downturn- well that's some next-level bad optics. At that point it really just looks like you're feeding on people's misery like some sort of vampire, and that sort of public imagery isn't going to win any friends. Now from their end they'll argue that this is exactly what makes their plight so justified, (I'll get to their verbal diarrhoea later) but all the rest of the world sees is the monster. As such, this has actually reached the ears of some of Parliament over here in England, and although I'm sure they'll not actually do anything about it (Parliament is notoriously a lot better at chatting then acting) it's sets a precedent for legislative consideration. What happens if that precedent is picked up by an actually effective government? Who knows...

Well the hopefuls are saying that it could lead to some sort of criminalisation of scalping practises, and wouldn't that be an interesting development to fall at these clown's doors? Of course, such practises are already frowned upon and I do believe there are some markets already in which scalping can land serious legal repercussions unless you have a serious legal team and an army of lobbyists to dissuade such. (such as medicine. You can't buy up that into scarcity unless you hide behind a pharmaceutical label) But a blanket ban on the very idea will certainly be enough to shake some sense into the deluded out there who think they're actually helping people. (And those type of scalpers do exist.) Personally I think that hoping for government regulation to save the day is the absolute bottom of the barrel, no where left to turn, solution; but that's where a lot of people are at.

Now what do the scalpers themselves think of such developments? That's actually been answered to about as well as a degree you could hope for given that you're not talking about a single specific group of people but a collective idea. What we do have is a sort of unofficial spokespeople for this particular scalping wave thanks to the 'do it yourself' scalping kit that a group of braggadocios scalpers have been selling and gabbing about. Maybe they don't represent the collective majority, but their words represent enough. As such you can imagine the sheer incredulity many felt when they read about how these scalpers feel they've been unfairly demonised by coverage. (I like to think when simply recounting your actions can be considered 'demonising', the problem might be in your actions) Still, this group has received hate, condemnation and now this, admittedly slim, chance of legal repercussions and they can't help but feel a little jilted. Apparently, through public statements they've made, the group see themselves as the 'good guys', helping people make money in the middle of the Pandemic by being the innocent middleman between the hardware manufacturers and the player.

Huh, you know that's a pretty good point. There really should be a middle man between manufactures and buyers, it's odd how that doesn't already exsi- oh wait it does, they're called Retailers. Now, I could go through each one of their arguments, but they're so frightfully fragile and moronic is surely isn't worth my time. Plus, I wouldn't want to insult your intelligence. Basically, just take into account how this guy equates his role to that of Tesco's, saying how no one complains when the supermarket chain buys milk from suppliers and then resells that milk to us an upscaled price. Wait nope, I lied I can't not say anything. What are you talking about? Tesco's doesn't gobble up the market's entire supply of milk so that they can inflate the price and sell it out to desperate masses that can't get it that elsewhere. They can't do that because it would illegal under the contracts they signed to become a retailer in the first place. These aren't the sorts of concepts you need to finish business college to comprehend; this here is basic stuff!

Whilst people like this continue to suffer no repercussion for their transgressions, the transgressions will continue, that's just the way of things. Humans aren't the morality imbued beasts of nobility that we paint ourselves as in fiction, we aren't fraught between clearly defined lines of right and wrong, we constantly justify and mould ourselves to be forever in the right, only really shifting our opinion when the ugly head of consequences rears it's head. (and sometimes we delude ourselves to overlook that too) But the scalpers do make one good point, and that's how these retailers don't have enough bot protection and update their stock without any indication to the public, and Sony/Microsoft don't demand such measures from their buyers. (Or heck, even sell the consoles themselves.) I sure that the stalemate will break after some time, like they always do, but if we really don't want to see ourselves in this stupid dance of whack-a-mole, it's going to take actual effort from some end. I'm just hoping we don't have to wait another console generation for that to materialise.

Stadia VS Terraria

 You feel an evil presence watching you...

Yes, look, I know I bring up Stadia too much. I know this has stretched beyond the point of a joke and dipped into sheer obsession. I know you're finger is currently hovering over the button to call the FBI to report my stalker-like devotion to this topic. I know all this- but gosh darn it you just can't stop me when a story goes this batty. I have to talk about it, else I'll just bottle it up inside and go back to the bad old place I used to be in. I don't wanna go there! You understand; this isn't about Stadia or you or me, it's about- well, actually back up: it is about me. This is me. Selfish content. Sue me. Actually don't sue me, sue Stadia, might as well scoop up some of those millions before they run out of it all and get shuttered within the impending few months. (They may have limped into 2021 against my wildest estimations, but I'll eat my hat if they make it to Christmas)

So what's the news today? Well it starts with another 'Have you heard of', only this time it's a much more palatable ask because we're talking about Terraria! Do you remember Terraria? It's the 2D crafting game that an absolute layman who dedicates next to no effort actually playing the game might mistake as being a 2D Minecraft. (So as you can imagine: that's IGN's review) No, Terraria's similarities with Minecraft start and end with the ability to deform the earth and create a house, exactly the same as a hundred different crafting survival games out there. Terraria is much more about the many enemies and bosses that you have to uncover and slay in order to make your world a little safer and keep it from the encroaching corruption. It's actually quite a bit more combat focused than Minecraft, with entire systems built in that take into account tiered weapons and armours, unique items and creative boss-killing traps. In that sense, you might say that Terraria has more in common with your typical Metroidvania than Minecraft, but even that's selling is short. All in all, Terraria is unique, thus a boon for any system to have on their storefront. (Or at least it would be had the team put any effort whatsoever into the modern console UI. Right now the console port pretty much unplayable. Get the PC version.)

Thus I'm hardly surprised that it was on the docket for Stadia conversion at some point within the near future. I mean, that just fits, no? I assume it was part of the write up for "Games we need to get as soon as possible in order to be taken seriously" Alongside Minecraft, Call of Duty and the latest Rockstar release. They- they don't have Call of Duty? Wait seriously? I mean at least they have- WHAT DO YOU MEAN THEY DON'T HAVE MINECRAFT! Good god, who is in charge of the Stadia project and how did they secure that a position after such a recent lobotomy? Irregardless, there's a certain type of game that most consider standard on any platform that they game from, and providing that is pretty much the bare minimum that any system needs to achieve. (Thank you for joining the standard as closely as feasibly possible this generation, Nintendo. We missed you for a bit there.)

But, what if I told you that was no longer the case. As in, Terraria suddenly has been pulled from the Stadia lineup just a few hairs before it's debut? Well, you might be wondering "What in the heck could have gone wrong?" I mean it can't be a hardware issue, that's unimaginable considering Stadia have been flaunting their 'magically invisible hardware' forever now. And no, this actually comes back to a much more human issue of bad customer service. Although, I will admit that given some of the comments/accusations that have been made regarding this case, I have a feeling there's another, more business oriented, side to this story that's not come out yet. Until then, however, I'm choosing to believe that this is all about the customer service.

You see, the co creator of Terraria, a Mr Spinks, seems to have had a rather rough go of things recently. He found himself being unceremoniously locked out of his google account recently, and the lackadaisical ethics of the Google support team had hin trapped in a dance that Mr Spinks so generously called "The runaround." Now, you'll likely be somewhat aware of how much of an issue being locked out of a Google account actually is. Google likes to fashion themselves as the front page of the Internet, (sorry Reddit) and their functionality crosses over to pretty much every single daily service one could go through. Want to post videos on Youtube to advertise your game? Google Account required. Want to communicate with your business email of 10 years? Google Account required. Want to manage a deal with Stadia to port your success-story indie game to their platform? It would seem, according to Mr Spinks, Google Account required.

We don't know the details about what went down, just that Spinks is adamant he broke absolutely no TOS rules. (Which, I suppose, we'll just have to believe unless anyone can prove otherwise.) The fallout has cost him the majority of his Google drive, too, so there might be some actual tangible work lost in whatever mix up caused this. And the consequence? Well, in a move that I'm sure some are eager to categorize as 'petty', he's actually gone ahead and cancelled the Stadia version of Terraria. Just like that, another essential game which Stadia has been missing out on, gone in a puff of smoke. I'd almost feel bad for the Stadia team- actually, you know what I do. That may be a little odd coming from me, but they had literally nothing to do with any of this Google account nonsense, so to punish them in order to punish their parent company sort of feels like missing the forest for the trees. Does Mr Spinks really think Google proper is going to bat an eye about losing this game for their service which is already on the way out? I'd imagine they don't even know what a 'Terraria' is.

Which is why I think there's another angle to this story which is yet to come out. The exact phrase which the aggrieved mister used was that it was a "Liability" to work with Google, now I don't know about you but that sounds like it carries a lot more baggage than being knocked about by a little bit of bad service. Additionally, I'd imagine there'd have to be an actual business-related issue for turning down free Google money like that. I mean, those guys are willing to throw around money like it's nothing, so if you're too proud to take advantage of that I can only assume it's because it'll cost you elsewhere. Then again, perhaps Mr Spinks just really holds umbrage with Google's monopolistic practises and was pressured into making a stand by this whole affair, it's hard to say from an outsider's viewpoint.

What this does betray, however, is something of a negative relationship between developers and Stadia, whether that be the rule or the exception over here. We've seen how the Epic Store has managed to secure itself as a viable storefront in recent years, despite being unequivocally worse put together than it's competitors, all through offering the developers a better deal. Heck, Kingdom Hearts just came out as an Epic Exclusive! (Then again, Square does appear to have some sort of personal gripe with Steam for some reason, so that might be more down to that.) As much as it pains you to hear it again, it pains me to say it again, but once more this is evidence of Stadia failing yet another milestone towards becoming the go-to platforms for games; Developer trust. And public coverage of this little disaster is only going to worsen that perception of trust going forward. Man, it really do suck to work for Google, huh. Aside from the paychecks. I'd imagine the paychecks make up for the widespread hatred just that little bit.