The missing Cell

Given it is owned by one of the most prolific developers and publishers in the world it really is starkly perplexing that we are still missing a new Splinter Cell game since the release of 2013's Blacklist 11 years ago. Of course I don't feel that absence quite as acutely as most given that I only got to playing through the series a few years ago for this very blog- but I do acknowledge what a genuinely solid series of games that was which really is going by the wayside for seemingly no reason whatsoever. What, do Ubisoft suddenly realise they don't like money? Are they afraid of their own potential to succeed? Or is something wholly more Ubisoft happening here that is just all too typical for the world's least innovative big developer? I bet you know which way I'm leaning with this one!

First it should probably be said that Splinter Cell was a trailblazer back in it's heyday. Taking the military political fiction of Tom Clancy's work and transposing it into a video game setting- the original Splinter Cell brought us a new face of action we'd not see pulled off to any success within the West. Whilst I feel we can still credit Kojima for the creation of the genre within the mainstream space, Splinter Cell's contributions to Stealth cannot be overlooked. Smashing lights to decrease visibility is still a wondrously versatile system that few stealth games even attempt to this very day! And Splinter Cell piled that atop of non lethal takedowns, sound manipulation, body dragging- just about every single tool that a competent stealth game would grown green with envy to covet. 

As the game's went on Ubisoft did start to buckle under the pressure of what 'the market' demanded in terms of their games- and given this was back in the day where niches weren't really big enough to be considered a market of their own I will relent on this point that Ubisoft are not perhaps fully to blame. In this rare circumstance. They tried to make Sam Fisher more of an action movie hero, just as Square attempted to do with Agent 47. In fact, both Absolution and Splinter Cell: Conviction feature pretty much the exact same 'tag and execute' move to allow characters to wipe out a room. Although I have to argue that it feels more fitting in Splinter Cell, given how exactingly precise and ghostlike Agent 47 is typically expected to be. And to be honest- I don't actually think the action influences ruined the franchise like some others argue.

Sure, the heart of Splinter Cell was built around the complexity of it's stealth through masterfully laid-out levels and with the shift towards 'room to room clear and sweep' a lot of that nuance and depth was lost- but I don't actually think that style of game misfit the franchise at all, honestly. There was an almost Arkham-level of fun to be had in stalking through arenas like a predator picking off the unawares and leaving their team-mates in states of increasing terror. It plays to a very primordial gamer desire that I'm a downright sucker for. It's a different face of Stealth, one that was uniquely Sam's for a while whilst the man was still active.

Since then, however, our man has been downright AWOL. I mean sure, we've seen some fleshpuppet wearing Sam's face show up in both Ghost Recon open world games, and I'm told he had a cameo in that Ubisoft cartoon thing, but as for the actual sneaky man we love? No even a dickey bird. We've been so abandoned by the franchise that for some reason when fans demand forced Ubisoft to turn around- they started blabbing about a remake like the franchise had run off a cliff or something! Umm- excuse me- there was an ongoing story with a cliffhanger and everything! Sure, it was the exact same cliffhanger as Conviction's- but it demanded a follow-up!

Stealth as a genre was built up by the dual talents of Metal Gear and Splinter Cell- such to the point that both are now considered grandfather's of the genre. With Snake finally being put to rest with what is quite simply the single greatest stealth game ever made as his swan song- what we need isn't some halcyon return to an outdated political thriller that struggles to nail basic concepts like 'light based stealth' all over again! We need something that reminds us why Splinter Cell was once considered in the same conversations as it's peers. Splinter Cell really needs to bring back it's best days- what we need is Chaos Theory levels of detail- complex levels, decent story, charming writing- shoot for the heyday, not the genesis.

Which is yet another issue I have with Ubisoft- they don't understand their own series. They know fans want another game but they don't understand why. People wanted a new Prince of Persia and Ubisoft, having replaced that franchise with Assassin's Creed, shrugged their shoulders in confusion and greenlit a remake. Like we needed a remake- the original game is fine- just remaster it you dunderheads! The same is true with Splinter Cell. We love the style of Splinter Cell, the makeup, the layout- there's nothing special about the original that simply must be recaptured: it's not even the widely praised fan favourite! It's the kind of move made by a faceless corpo who never once played this franchise, or a game in general, trying to capitalise on a fandom he has no care for.

I want there to be a return to Splinter Cell- and I would prefer if it tried something new. Although many remakes have certainly shaken things up in ways no one could have expected- but do we really expect Resident Evil 4 levels of mastery out of a Ubisoft game? They have trouble reigning in entirely new projects, god forbid them try the same with a total restructure-remake to the scale of Capcoms! But even if it all falls through- that will be fine because the great thing about Splinter Cell: it ages fine. Every single one of those games (save 'Double Agent' and perhaps 'Pandora Tomorrow', I never played 'PT' so I can't say) is a blast to experience and I'm sure a team who understands that would be able to secure a decent bit of pocket change without all the unnecessary effort they're currently flushing down the wrong drain. Make a new Splinter Cell, Ubisoft- that's what we've been nagging you for!

I finished Atomic Heart

 

A while ago I posted a little something about a game called 'Atomic Heart' about which I was none too pleased. I called the game all sorts of unpleasant things, from clumsy to amateurish and theorised that I might not even make it to the end. But then I decided to google how many quests there were and noticed that, since the game's quests can be as short as clearing out a single destination, I was already half way through the game. And at the point... I mean I just wanted to see why there was that low contingent of weirdoes out there who damn-near insisted that this was the game to blow your socks off? I heard people call it 'incredible' and whilst my typical reaction is to implore these people to try out some better games to see what actual systematic mastery looks like (as opposed to 'dart at a board' design philosophy) maybe there was something I didn't see straight away.

And after pushing through the game to the final credits I have to reflect back on that one review comparing this game to modern day DOOM and remark "Wow- that's still nonsense!" But seriously, the biggest revision I would make upon my initial impressions would be on the gameplay- because whilst the limited tools of the beginning matched with the dull melee and the out-of-place ammo scavenging scupper those early hours- a lot of these pressure points start to alleviate by the mid to late game. Especially when you start loading up on enough ammo to make the ammo scavenging design essentially pointless, once again raising the query of why it was ever implemented in the first place if it doesn't fit the design of the game and forces the player to engage with shoddy melee for several hours before they let loose?

When you start getting enough tools to equip a decent arsenal that you upgrade to be specifically useful, then you start getting to the point where spotting an enemy doesn't immediately draw the biggest sigh you can possibly muster- because you actually have some options and can play around with your prey. The open world still stuffs itself silly with endlessly respawning trite in place of genuine level design- but we've already assessed that the open world is a lost cause- less said about it the better. In particular I feel it's worth praising the cartridge system which allows the assignment of limited-use elemental buffers on all your traditional weapons making the actual raw shooting feel a lot more dynamic and interesting. It's really quite clever- however it does highlight another quirk of modern damage-type based shooters I've come to despise recently.

I'm talking about the 'damage buff' element types. In this game it would 'Polymer' which comes up in gameplay as a substance squirted onto enemies in order to heighten the amount of damage they take from elemental effects- just like how the purple goop in Borderlands 2 works. But just as with Borderlands 2- the existence of this substance ends up limiting gameplay opportunities for the player unless they actively choose to be less effective in a game with pointlessly artificially restrained resources. Once you've got it, every fight starts with a Polymer jet stream over your enemies before anything else, bringing an otherwise unnecessary aura of 'sameness' to every encounter with undermines the otherwise decently varied enemy design. It's a conceptual problem however, and I think I already know enough about Atomic Heart to figure out that conceptual considerations were not this team's forte.

Many seem to believe that the abject pathetic-aspect of character dialogue alleviates as the game goes on, and to some degree I think they're right. The incessant nattering of Char-les, utterly inappropriate to the tone and undermining environmental storytelling doesn't go away, but the protagonist becomes less obnoxiously dickish to everyone. He still is a dick, just less of one in every sentence. Upgrading the dialogue from unbearable to ignorable. It still never becomes good and highlights another giant problem- Atomic Heart doesn't know how to tell a story.

Literally the entire crux of the narrative's plot, the major character motivations and where the player's thoughts should be, are dictated out-loud through seemingly random conversations that Char-les brings up out of the blue. These conversations are drawn out and placed, once again, as though by an amateur- to such a point where big three minute arguments trigger during a 15 second stroll from one location to an obvious boss arena- meaning that a player who wants to actually follow this narrative is forced to stand listlessly on the edge of the arena for three minutes whilst their watch natters away seemingly forever. Perhaps there would be more natural opportunities to spark meaningful exchanges like these if the open world wasn't slapped together by a madman in a rush- but here we are. And even if that were the case- we're still talking about a narrative literally read off the script for us- talk about wasting the medium.

On the rare occasions that we actually do get cutscenes I think it becomes pretty obvious that Atomic Heart had no cinematographers on staff. Which is not in itself a great crime for an indie studio, but it just highlights the absolute bizarre discrepancy between the quality of all the art assets in the game and the near-experimental bumbling of practically every other department!  Characters bobble awkwardly on shots held too long, with strange too-zoomed-in angles that hold too long and intention is devoid from any of it. If these scenes were meant to illicit emotion, the only emotion would be bewilderment. And maybe that is the intent- but that certainly wouldn't fit with the schizophrenic tone. The only actually well shot scenes are those involving the Twins, because you know these developers aren't going to miss a well placed shot admiring their eye-poppingly curvy ballerina robots- no matter how utterly weird and unexplainable their actions are. Not that I'm angry about that, per se- I would have preferred seeing those twins in more scenes in fact- they seemed to focus the staff somewhat...

Atomic Heart seems to be the product of under-testing, were I to guess. A title that came together in the late stages of a very experimental development period, wherein the team were trying to figure out what it was they even wanted with the game. After which I suspect they lacked the resources to test out the entire game (which might explain the bugginess the game still boasts even after all this time) or just lacked the concrete vision to know what sort of experience they wanted their game to effuse- which leads to an experience I will charitably call "lobsided" and less so charitable plaster "an unfocused and frustrating mess". I liked Atomic Heart in the end, despite itself. But I would not recommend it to anyone when Bioshock does everything it wants to do neater, more cleverly and with an unforgettable narrative that changed gaming as a whole. My score doesn't change.

Flintlock: Siege of Dawn- pretty good, actually

 

When first seeing Flintlock: Siege of Dawn I wouldn't have called myself 'mightily impressed' with anything that was on offer. The game looked like another Souls-Like to throw on the pile, pistols to shake up the formula to be sure but that was about it. Thus I'll admit the only reason I actually sat down to play the thing was because it was available right there on Gamepass for me to give it a shot and I thought- "Eh, why not." It is on the back of a complete playthrough of the game that I can honestly reflect how I was unfair on this game, both in my initial disregard and my surly attitude going into the first hour or so. And I should have known better given the developers created the well regarded Ashen, but I guess it takes experience to teach the ignorant.

The best way I've heard the gameplay for Flintlock described is as the game being a 'Souls-Lite'. Which is to say- all the trappings of a traditional Souls game but minus a lot of the more intricate and complex systems such as full-blown RPG levelling stats to parse and navigate. Flintlock gives you a skill tree and a dream- further playing into my belief that Souls-gameplay has firmly replaced traditional Action Adventure game design wholesale. In many ways Flintlock is like the accessible Souls game that anyone can dip into in order to get a feel for what the genre is like. Simplified build's thanks to overt gear sets, typical smash and parry combat with a particularly generous parry window and a punishing counter move built into the combat- and a slew of fun but not exactly challenging bosses to cut through in this neatly paced- twenty hour adventure.

Of course, I wouldn't exactly call this game's biggest boon those beginning few hours. The underpowered scrambling of early Souls-games are legendary in their frustration, but for a game as gameplay rigid as Flintlock those early hours really allow the problems with the base gameplay design to show. Take the parry for instance. That parry is brutal and until you unlock withering, (this game's version of a stagger meter) this is pretty much how you end fights with smaller mobs exclusively. Knowing this, as well as how generous the team made their parry window, the developers decided to limit the amount of attacks you can parry. Glowing red warning attacks, unlike in other titles like Lies of P, cannot be parried and thus need to be dodged or interrupted with a quick pistol shot- put simply it's really that parriable attack you're on the lookout for. However, because of how valuable that parry is, enemies are built with movesets heavily weighted with glowing unparriable moves with rare non-indicated parriable attacks. Essentially creating a system where you are avoiding the big attacks that are visually telegraphed and seizing your opportunity with the plain attacks that get no telegraphing. It's just backwards on a design standpoint.

As the game progresses, however, and you start to unlock other ways to fight- Enki passive distractions, Withering build up meters, alternative long-weapons, regenerating grenades- the suite available really opens up with a kind of variety not typical to many other Souls-style games. Sure, you have an option to create an incredible amount of builds in the better souls-games, but few give you the arsenal to wield them all at the same time, or at the touch of a single button. It feels incredibly satisfying to get to a point of familiarity that permits that really aggressive playstyle where you dominate whole crowds of enemies with powder and magic. I really came to enjoy kicking ass in this game. 

Flintlock's narrative isn't going to be winning any awards. Actually the game follows a rather straightforward tale of battling the forces of the dead and the gods who stand above them- none of the major characters stand out especially, but none drag down the rather simple narrative either. Some have marked the protagonist as 'boring' but I find that a common misnomer among criticism, Nor is a totally serviceable protagonist with an unambitious story- she is a fine hero for this story. But in our world of extremes - you're either captivating or a snoozefest- which totally precludes the deludes of inbetween therein. Aiden from Watch_Dogs suffered the same slander for years at the hands of the dismissive- but the man's fandom proved enough to bring him back to applause in both sequels.

Bosses are a bit more standout, not numbering very much but providing a decent enough spectacle bout on their own. I think there was an active effort to make sure none of the major bosses upped the ante too unbearably throughout Flintlock and instead fitted their purpose as stopgaps in a conventional story. We are supposedly killing gods, but I never felt a godlike struggle or even a godlike awe looking upon them. But underneath the somewhat lacking challenge- they are fun to fight, diverse in attacks, stuffed with tiny additive gimmicks and largely devoid of drawn out "run away and don't attack" sections- which other Souls-Likes still haven't learnt to avoid. (>cough<Lords of the Fallen>cough<)

My only real complaint would be the difficulty wall right at the very end of the game- the final boss can happily go 'do one'. Being just large enough to sit perpetually off-screen whenever you lock onto him- this encounter is a barrage of sweeping and absurdly powerful attacks which seem to have been pulled out of nowhere. Typically games like these are supposed to build up the challenge, but this was like drifting through DMC 2 and then suddenly being handed a mid-point DMC 3 out of nowhere! And it's not just the attacks themselves, this game features one of the most out of pocket second phases I've recently seen- split with an entire cutscene and breather moment without a checkpoint- meaning you are sent back to the start of the whole fight with each death. The team clearly leaned more into narrative aplomb with how they designed the fights, with some deeply predictable 'set piece' moments, but they didn't want to hold back on the violent unrelenting chaos which led to the worst of all worlds. I rarely go to sleep because a boss made me so frustrated. So well done for that, Flintlock.

Siege of Dawn is like the agnostic's Souls-Like, bridging together the potential of the risk-reward proposition this genre provides whilst feeding back into the power fantasy that seems to have been lost with the passing of traditional action adventure games. Whilst there may be games who do each vertical better individually, I can only think of one other series that deftly tackles this exact convergence and that would be the Jedi: Fallen Order series. Flintlock is a good game, not a great one, not a world burner, but a constrained and largely polished experience that doesn't even bloat itself out with an ill-thought out New Game + system. It's just a fun once-through. Recommended.

"But did you really beat Elden Ring?"

 

If there is one thing about the Souls-loving community that drives me insane it's how utterly pathetically self absorbed and repugnant they are at all times. If it weren't for the games themselves suddenly growing so apocalyptically great that normies got drawn into the flurry, the genre would have literally no chance of taking of naturally just for how many gatekeepers litter this genre type and are encouraged to fester. At first it was the meme- "Get Gud"- an all that, as people acclimatised to the genre of game they were playing. A genre that held no hands, spared no quarter and rewarded the triumphant with the inexplicably intrinsic. But somewhere along the way the irony withered and what was left in it's place is a breed of folk who quite simply do not understand what the genre was ever about to begin with, lording themselves up as arbiters of it's virtue. And it depresses me.

The biggest weapon in the arsenal of any Souls-Like, the utmost goal at the end of the blood-strewn rainbow, is satisfaction. Satisfaction at having beaten a tough challenge and proven yourself capable at the other end of it all. It's the reason we play these games. It's not explicitly the challenge of completing a difficult task- that is merely the vehicle through which satisfaction is accrued. There is no guideline on the games about the way they should be played- which is kind of the beauty of them. Dark Souls through to Elden Ring provide an entire world with which to learn and tools to covet in your war to the credits. I'd wager that most players out there don't even realise that a lot of the consumables they pick up could actually trivialise a lot of their really challenging fights if they were to put them to proper use. The games give you the tools, you only need to use them.

Back throughout the Souls series there was an elitist attitude around the use of Summons- even though there are questlines that literally demand you pull certain NPCs into certain fights in order to progress them; apparently you aren't playing properly if you bring a buddy. It all stems from this belief that Dark Souls bosses were never designed to deal with more than 1 enemy at a time and the bosses become hopelessly confused to the point of trivialisation with a partner. Which is... strange. After all the praise that Dark Souls gets from a design standpoint, for people to believe that summons are were they totally forgot any sense of balancing. In truth, no- bosses always have sweep attacks, tend to keep themselves abreast of how many enemies they're facing and never 'glitch out to the point of trivialisation' as some would insist- as that would make them defective NPCs.

Now of course having a summon makes the battle easier- but so does wearing armour. So does wielding a weapon. So does learning the enemies attack pattern. As long as your sticking within the confines of the game and playing within the expected play parameters- what makes this the arbitrary point of 'breaking the experience'. That same snobbiness carried over to magic- which, due to what I can only assume to be an embarrassed reaction to someone not knowing about damage types vulnerability, was labelled a 'cheap tactic' by the community. Nevermind Sorceries demand a serious levelling commitment before they become actually useful. Nevermind none can be freely aimed so you need to be close enough to get a bop on the head to use them. Nevermind the vulnerable casting window that leaves you open to use them. They're unbalanced- someone said. Presumably someone who never realised you can coat your weapon in special effects that can double damage to the right enemies- or is that 'cheating' too?

There's this sense of superiority to playing ineffectively that totally boggles the mind to experience. Don't get me wrong- those that want to challenge themselves can reap all the plaudits they want- but I'm not going to accept being called a 'trash casual' because I slapped down 'Bayle the Dread' with a greatsword literally designed for slaying "Colossal dragons". That would be like criticising someone for solving a puzzle instead of bashing their head against the mechanism until it gave up- it's genuinely baffling. Yet for some reason that belief is allowed to permeate and really only exists within the Souls community of games- it is baffling.

If you were having trouble tackling a major optional boss in an RPG and went online looking for advice- you'll get advice that guides you towards gear you want to try, builds you may need to switch up your party to utilise, maybe even actual strategy advice! It was those sorts of threads that guided me through Neriscyrlas in Pillars of Eternity 2- and plenty of other big baddies besides him. Ask the same for literally any fight in any Souls game and I will tell you the advice right now- for every one of them. "You just need to learn the fight.". "It's actually really easy. "I beat it first try." "When you figure out the attack patterns it's literally the easiest fight." Genuinely, after wading through self-aggrandizing auto-fellatio the most constructive advice you'll ever find from the community is: 'Once you beat the fight it's easy'. Which at that point- you might as well have not bothered type the message to begin with, eh?

You know there is something fundamentality wrong with a community of gamers when you got more coherent and tangible information by scrolling through Fextralife! That badly formatted former Twitch bot-farm of a website actually stocks genuinely useful strategy guides that helped me pull of stunts like poisoning Darkeater Midir to death on NG+3. And why is that? Because these people worship the idea of playing through these games in the least innovative, most bare basic, manner possible. How many of these people know the supremely cool spells out there in the game? Or the really cool special consumable effects? Or the great Spirit Ash team-ups possible out there? At least the PVP community seems to have slide right past all that infantile regression and simply meta chase all day. At least that is somewhat respectable! 

To those that really question the legitimacy of Souls players who are resourceful enough to actually use the game's tools to overcome their enemies, really address yourself and ask what it is that makes your own, less elaborate and more blunt, approach appealing in your eyes. Is it that you completed the fight in your way? On your terms? Then why exactly are you trying to force you way onto other people who are achieving exactly that, going for those very same plaudits? At the end of the day, there is no easy button on Souls Games. I get it- I didn't use Summons throughout 'Lies of P', I know sometimes you want recognition. But not at the expense of trying to place yourself as superior over other players- that is just pathetic. 

Malice or incompetence

 

I like to think I'm a levelheaded, sometimes snarky, asshat when it comes to how I comment on situations within this blog- only ever rarely spurred to moments of whitehot rage. But the rage does come, never you doubt that! And when I think back to those delightful diatribes into surly snarling- I think back to times when I went in on Apex Legends for the way that they set up their first major play event- which also marked the last time I played that game because I know all too well the road these companies inevitably all go when they start dipping their toes in the wrong pools. I remember it so well because it was there that I issued an theoretical ultimatum- though the team maintained their innocence that the predatory design of the event was purely accidental- it's existence alone was indicative of one of two realities- malice or incompetence.

Now Apex Legends has reared itself into the news cycle once again and I can't help but reflect on that time all those years ago and think about how still true it remains today. Of course the modern situation is slightly different- changes to the battle pass that will cut down the length of seasons by half and demand more out of the premium battle pass whilst limiting the ability to grind your way to getting the new pass; but that same stink of grind lingers on it all- you know? And the question comes- do we attribute this to malice or just incompetence- and it's a real headscratcher for me, I must admit. Once again we sit on the other side of this debacle- somewhat- and in that I think we have a little elucidation on the topic, but I want to rewind back to the complaint itself for a wee sec.

So seasons would be split in two- one and a half month long each branches, and players would have to pay their way into the premium stage of both passes if they wanted everything or just endure the free track. Of course, there was also the new stage of premium but we'll put that aside for now. What we have here, in my opinion, is a red herring. Starting with the incompetence argument- you would have to be absolutely space-bound, out of this planet and solar system, not to predict a backlash for slapping down a change like that. After months of fan complaining about low effort Battle Passes, this addresses none of their concerns and asks for more of their time and money- you might as well spit on them and call their mother mean names in the process- it was never going to go down well!

But if we approach this from a malice angle- then we get more interesting results. More money is the goal- considering that EA and EA Sports split earlier this year, EA properties just like Apex can no longer rest behind the infinite profits of the sports games and now they have to actually prove they need to exist. Double charging is an old reliable but far too volatile to be accepted by the audience- but increase people's playtime within your universe and that deepens their likelihood of spending money on your crap. Afterall, it's the only thing they'll have time to play anymore, given that they've only got one and a half months to grind through your battle pass- might as well spend that money you would have slipped into the pockets of other similar titles on your one true love, right? Thus I see a red herring.

How does the needle get moved towards the anti-consumer direction in this, highly scrupulous, industry? You set up a patsy pawn that draws the ire of everyone and then sneak in your real goal behind that- soak up the damage with a "we're sorry, we'll listen now" statement and giggle to yourself as people don't realise you encroached just that little bit into their land. EA have pulled back on some of the double-monetisation of the Battle pass. You can still grind enough credits in one pass to pay for the next like it always was... but seasons will still be one and half months long going forward. A genre already criticised for stealing time is now trying to steal even more.

See, I'm rarely a believer in the 'useful idiot' syndrome. I think it is excessively rare to find someone so idiotic that they just stumble into pro-corporate anti-consumer positions totally on accident repeatedly- and if that person is real, they should have a reality show on TV because they sound like a riot to watch. What's much more likely is that lines are being pushed further and further and someone is being set up as a patsy to feign ignorance. And if you're calling me a conspiracy theorist and wondering where the potential cause for such a twist in fortunes lies- let me remind you once again: EA are currently really looking to up their books after losing the safety net that was EA Sports. Apex Legends isn't currently growing, it's player base is getting restless about supposed cheating and poor season passes- so now is the time to dig in the claws.

Where I think the team might have messed up is in the whole 'eyes bigger than your hands' situation when it comes to monetisation. A smart move would have been to revert back to the paid model that things used to reside in so that players can fool themselves into accepting a pyrrhic victory; but EA want to have and eat that cake in the same swoop. Sure, now you can buy Ultimate battle passes with ingame currency like always- but you can't buy the 'Ultimate +' one with ingame currency! (Yes, they literally called it 'Ultimate +', because apparently we live in a South Park skit.) That is a extra tier remaining in the new deal with direct money purchases only and a smattering on unique rewards- not just tier skips! Because they want you to be comfortable with no longer being able to earn your next battle pass. Ain't they just sweethearts?

I had to cover this one again just to smack down the 'we're silly billies who never meant any harm' fallacy. People that stupid would never have made it to the positions that they have, and that they think their audience complacent and dumb enough to buy their drivel should be taken as the highest possible insult. I don't care too much because I jumped out of that pot before they even lit the pilot light- but if those who remain really think they can take the heat I just hope they are prepared as the situation slowly becomes worse and worse. Take the lesson that the inflation of economy was born to teach us all- things never get better, they just deteriorate slightly slower sometimes. 

Concord? More like Boeing!

 Get it? Because they... mess up a lot... and are bad... Boeing? The planes? Like... like Concord...

Concord was not exactly a soaring superstar of the PlayStation conference when it was announced by Playstation as one of the unlucky survivors of their recent Live Service purge. Although, you might call it a 'lucky' survivor, given that Concord seems to be a game built from the ground-up to fit into the Live Service mould by a 'Firewalk Studios' who presented such an impressive vision of what they wanted the game to be when they showed it off to Sony that the entire studio got acquired. But when you ask what the special spark of that Quirky-character hero shooter actually was, you'll likely get blank stares from the swathes of people who simply saw Overwatch 3.0 with Guardians of the Galaxy character archetypes and simply rolled their eyes out of their skulls. But I actually think I know what they were going for.

Overwatch's biggest failure is it's wide inability to capitalise on it's lore. Rich and potent but utterly disregarded in favour of a PVP game which directly contrasts with the setting presented- Overwatch exists more fluidly in the hearts of those that play it than on the screen itself- and after the cancellation of the single player mode for Overwatch 2 gamers just seemed to reach their breaking point of waiting. If Blizzard don't care enough to see the potential of this franchise hit it's zenith, then why should they? And I suspect it was exactly this gap that Concord sought to profit from. Because what exactly does Concord do unique? What does it do differently? One thing- it promises to provide weekly cinematics expanding the lore of the world for however long it can. (I suspect it's meant to be seasonal.) And if Overwatch did something similar- well, I would have watched them all back in the day. But... it isn't 'the day' anymore, you get me?

We're no longer in that space where imagining about the potential of Live Service games elicits anything but grumbling dissatisfaction over the ongoing state of the genre-type. The 'wonder' about quirky characters and wanting to see who they are, where they go and what they become kinda died at the hands of Blizzard themselves who seems to assert that their insanely colourful cast isn't worthy of any extrapolation beyond zany phrases uttered during matches or the odd exchange back and forth at the start of some games. To this day a lot of the big lore about interpersonal character relationships are informed solely by interpretations of these tiny snippets- and you know how unhinged the Internet is! They've convinced themselves that Pharah and Mercy are in an intense BDSM relationship! You simply can't expand complex character personalities in such a limited space!

What's more, Concord really is stepping into a very dangerous ring by announcing itself not as a free-to-play title, but rather as a $40 game- a business model all but unheard of with modern competitive games that aren't Call of Duty. With games like these that need to scoop up as many players as possible, the more barriers to entry you present the harder it is to build up that audience. Overwatch pulled it off in a different age with a vastly different public sentiment, Concord really is giving itself the hard path to success aping it's progress. Although I really do think the game needs that buy in money- afterall creating high quality animations to air on the weekly isn't exactly simple 'half ass' style content. They really are stuck between that rock and that hard place.

And it would seem that all the mixed feelings around Concord are coming to fruit given the recent pre-release numbers the game has generated courtesy of two Betas. The first Beta launched to horrifically bad numbers, less than 2000 players which quickly dwindled- indicating a particularly weak number of pre-orders to get into the closed beta. And the recent open beta, for which you need absolutely nothing in order to play the game, hit just under 2400. Abominable numbers for a game like this reflective of the very real fact that no one is talking about Concord in the general gamer spaces. No one cares about this game. If people won't even show up when the game is out there for free- what do you think the numbers will look like come launch?

Those who have actually taken time to play Concord seem mixed to unsatisfied with the game. The game's basic layout both fails to inspire anyone bored with this style of game and satisfy those who are enfranchised with it. Most notably in the gameplay department seems to be the utterly hair-brained idea to make a 'character elimination' style mode for Ranked which prevents players from re-selecting any character they've won a round with- essentially forcing players to play every other character rather than the one they main during important 'Ranked' sessions. To call that misguided is one thing, I'd go so far as to label it straight oblivious.

Then there are just the general characters themselves that don't seem essentially badly designed by any stretch of the imagination but just- unoriginal. We've seen these archetypes present before and even throwing impressive visual character designs atop them does little to mask the impression that we've seen this all before and Concord has nothing new to bring to the table. Which is especially sad considering that Concord is relying on you caring about it's cast in order to be drawn in by the promise of new animatics every few weeks or so. If you don't care about the cast, what does any of that actually mean?

Concord seems to be yet another Live Service set to launch to a world that doesn't want it. And although we have aficionados of the genre-type like Warframe insisting that these kinds of games are abandoned far too soon- I think for a lot of these games you really can see the writing on the wall. Suicide Squad was dead on arrival, before arrival in fact. The public just doesn't want these kinds of games unless they strike with lightning, because the amount of investment they demand from the player, in terms of time, defies common reason. Now I really don't think Concord is overall a bad product- I just think it is perhaps landing at a terrible time for games like it- and I think it sucks how much genuinely good work is going to be lost when this game is left to shrivel and then shut off in a year or two.

Oh god: new Like a Dragon game announcement this September!

 

It should come as a surprise to no mortal man upon this world that you are currently reading the words of a Like a Dragon addict. I've played every one of their games, written exhaustively about each and every game. Dressed up as Kiryu Kazama to multiple comic cons. There's not a single part of this franchise I could obsess over more- and the fact that they even threw in a JoJo reference in Yakuza 0 is just the golden cream atop the glorious broth to me. But I will be the first to say that when I finally reached that (disappointing) final boss at the end of the DLC endgame dungeon in Like a Dragon: Infinite Wealth I breathed a sigh of relief for having reached the end of my journey for at least a year. I figured I could put to rest my fandom until 2025 and maybe catch up with the rest of the world for a time. Beat those Souls-likes I've always wanted to play. Go outside for a bit. And I have. And it's been nice.

But Sega want me back.

Of course I heard the movement that this franchise was bubbling up in the background- how could I not? I knew that Like a Dragon would be getting it's own series under the Amazon label and that would give me an excuse not to retire my cosplay just yet after Kiryu takes his back seat from the franchise- for which I am supremely grateful. And I even heard the coy conversations about what the next game might hold- how it will be 'a surprise' and the lofty, silly ideas I had about what that could even mean. But it seems I blotted out the part where all this movement means that any marketing team is going to make an announcement sooner rather than later. That's kinda how stuff like this works. I was a fool- and now I will suffer for my foolishness by soon having to slot in the next adventure in the Like a Dragon universe into my 'to play list'. There's goes my free time.

So indeed- this September at the Tokyo Games Show we will have the next instalment of the Like a Dragon franchise fed down our throats, willing or otherwise, and in that brief sliver of time between now and then my mind boggles at the possibilities. What could it be? All we have to go off of is that this is 'not what we're expecting', whatever that means. Well, actually I know kinda what it means in the macro sense. It means we won't yet be getting a follow up to the incredible Lost Judgement, which is a shame. And we're probably also not looking at Kiwami 3 (thank god) or a remake of Kenzan. This really might be another side sequel in the vein of Gaiden, which could go practically anywhere in the franchise.

But let me get a bit wild for a bit. So if I was to get crazy with a Like a Dragon game that I would never see coming being announced, I would perhaps look at a prequel game starring Nishkiyama. And yes, there already was one such game- but that PSP exclusive could hardly match up to the sheer power of modern day Like a Dragon so I'd assume they'd either make a new one or totally remake that game from scratch- even more so than the visual and engine overhaul they did with Ishin. And if I were to get more out there with it- wouldn't it be cool to go off with some of the characters we've lost upon the way? I may dislike Yakuza 3, but I can't pretend I'm not interested in what it was that Mine has gotten up to in the years since his education beatdown atop Millennium Tower- and given the fact he recently got an updated model in order to star as a face-swap in Ishin, maybe it's time our shirtless push-up boy received his own spin-off?

There's plenty of villains who have peeled off over the years but few really hit as strong as Mine did. With his world view shaped under the boot of an unforgiving upbringing and an inability to form meaningful relationships with those around him- don't you want to see what a man like him could become under different circumstances? Of course, that might be a little difficult to pull of considering this is a Like a Dragon game and Mine was last seen plunging off the side of Millennium Tower. But then... he was seen plunging off Millennium Tower- whilst dragging Richardson with him! The very same Richardson who is runs the Revolve Bar in Infinite Wealth! So... I mean he could be alive... don't see why not...

But let's get wild- we're talking about a game totally unexpected which could mean a totally different genre! And for that- well we might be looking at a fully fledged Like a Dragon Strategy game! There have already been a slate of strategy mini-games in some of their games, I don't consider a totally wild proposition out of the blue for a fully fledged game to give us a spin at commanding an army of Yakuza thugs. Or maybe a squad-based tactical game like X-Com? (I'm trying to think outside of the box here!) There could certainly be something to be said about commanding armies of Tojo in the war against the Omi, with classic franchise characters starring as guest hero units. Battling through the streets of various locations throughout the franchise. Maybe through the eyes of Daigo Dojima, the only character who never really get's a spotlight to himself throughout the franchise? 

And if I were to shoot for the moon? Well, I would expect for a totally alternative universe Like a Dragon game, in the same vein as Ishin where we have classic characters playing recognisable roles but as different characters- and for it to be sci-fi. I know- what? But imagine it- Cyberpunk a Dragon! Robot armed Kiryu Kazama! Or 'Like a Trek'- travelling through the stars and meeting aliens who are just characters throughout the franchise with different colour skin and bad ear prosthetics! I don't know- I'm just trying to think as 'outside of the box' as feasibly possible with this one! Maybe we'll get a fully fantasy game where we travel across a vast fantastical kingdom slaying some evil presence that has laid waste to the lands and- maybe it could be a Souls-like? Could you imagine?

Like a Dragon is just one of those franchises entirely unrestrained by the confines of genre or setting- and unlike many others in similar straits it never seems to lose it's identity in the chaos of it all. It's not like Call of Duty slowly diluting itself with bad crossovers or Fortnite burning out it's soul to become a marketing receptacle for all the world to urinate in. When you tell me to expect the unexpected there's just no limit to where my mind can go and I truly expect my wallet to cry out in agony at whatever chaos September has for us. So please go gentle on me, SEGA- I really would like a bit of freedom from this franchise for a bit. Maybe just until February? Come on, man!

Dragon Age is worrying me

 

In the manner most befitting a product of it's calibre- 'Dragon Age The Veil- whatever' is doing it's publicity tour- courting around the various internet outlets with handpicked snippets of information and maybe a screenshot here or there- all to try and make sure the Dragon Age fanbase is as engaged as they can be for the drop of that game we're all to be playing. At some point. And through it all, the lights, the glamour, the glitz, I can't shake this twisting churning un the root of my guts coiling into a walnut at the sight of it all. Not excitement. Not anticipation. Not burning hot desire. Just an inner roiling, like intestinal bracing for some impending strike. Whether it's the buzzing of reason or the tides of my heart- Dragon Age is worrying me.

Now to be very clear- I am actually a huge Dragon Age fan. Back in the dark ages of Western RPGs, Origins would be a practically bi-monthly playthrough for me, as I went over the most cinematic order in which to complete events, the fulfilling narrative journey across an origin story and the most cathartic endings to pursue. I saw that original game like a canvass upon which to write my journey, which is a sensation I haven't experienced in any other RPG since until Baldur's Gate 3- not even in subsequent Dragon Age games. That being said I still very much liked Dragon Age 2's more sit-com-esque situation-of-the-week approach to the story, and although the execution was a bit messy the more traditional 'epic adventure spanning several regions' presentation of Inquisition was cool. Not cool enough to make me stick through the game and finish it. Yes, I never finished Inquisition. Sue me.

What I'm trying to say is: I appreciate that it is uniquely Bioware's style to create vastly different feeling RPG games when it comes to the Dragon Age franchise and that is part of what draws me in. You never really know what you're getting from game to game and it allows totally different experiences to be brought forth. But then, I also know the inherent danger of playing 'spin the wheel' like that- for losing exactly what it was that made the last few games hit. Sometimes you miss the tone, sometimes the framing devices don't sit quite so snuggly around the narrative you've inherited, and sometimes you forget to make an RPG for your RPG franchise. Yeah, that last one is a real kicker, ain't it? But that isn't what I want to talk about today. Today I want to talk about marketing.

Everything we hear about The Veilguard from now until launch, barring any potential leaks, is marketing. Materials put out by the creators and publishers to drum up interest, build expectation and amass the kind of audience they think will best engage with this game. When we're looking at a product which so distinctly does not represent the Dragon Age we've come to know and love, both tonally and in terms of gameplay, maybe by analysing the marketing material some nugget of truth about what game they're even building here, or who they're building it for, might elucidate upon us.  And to that end... I'm kinda getting Mass Effect Andromeda vibes here guys... Ain't exactly the best model for success to follow. (Even though I maintain that Andromeda was over-hated.)

Marketing is all about scoring those big moments of interest, those things that will draw in the eyes and make everyone go 'oooh!'- but I think for this game that big moment was supposed to be the gameplay drop and that- well, it didn't really do anything for me. Andromeda also focused on the gameplay, a lot of games do, but Andromeda at least had the Jetpack to show off. Dragon Age has less tactical prowess to show off. Less role playing potential. Less depth in a gaming world slowly opening up to the potential of gameplay systemic depth. This feels like a franchise in the midst of a backslide that may have incorrectly predicted the trajectory of the industry- and that's a little heartbreaking to be honest.

In the throes of questionable marketing choices Andromeda will always stand out for me for at least the point at which they (I believe it was the publishers rather than the development team, the details escape me) bragged about the quality of the sex scenes. And I remember thinking just how odd that was. Now bear in mind- I'm not so American-coded opinionist who shudders "corrupting immortality" at the mere mention of sexuality within gaming- I respect the capacity of sex and sexuality within this medium and think that is actually a underexplored aspect of art. (Not that I have any clue how one would actually explore that effectively.) But what in the heck did any of that have to do with Mass Effect? Who rocks up to Mass Effect rubbing the hands hoping the animation team really knocked it out the park on the sex scenes? No one, that's who!

Veilgaurd hasn't slipped quite that out of touch yet. Recently a Bioware veteran who is currently consulting on the game, (proof that the Bioware of old isn't completely absent from the project as some insist.) Mark Darrah has gone on record insisting that this game finally hones in on 'telling stories through their characters'- which both sounds promising and perplexing to my ears. On one hand we have to admit- Bioware gives us hosts of memorable characters who are at their best when they are allowed to interact directly with the main narrative, as best exampled in Mass Effect 2. (He brings up Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 as examples in his point which kind of offers wisps of a rose-tinted recollection. Baldur's Gate 2 sure did exemplify this at times, but 1's cast often felt woefully disconnected from core events in a frustrating way.) On the otherhand- you would really expect a focus on the importance of characters within this world would extend into gameplay- and the fact that we're not really seeing that feels like a bit of a disconnect between story and game. A real 'Ludonarrative dissonance', as opposed to the vapidly buzz-word manner in which that term is typically employed.

Dragon Age worries me. And it worries me because I care. Or cared. I still do, I think, but not quite to the degree I once did. I think Dragon Age has compromised itself narratively over the years in the manner that all these franchises with tunnel vision tend to do (don't get started with Star Wars and the amount of narrative contradictions) but I engage fully with the world of the games at least. And if Veilgaurd isn't the triumphant return to form that I think this franchise really needs to stand out in a world of genuinely highclass and rising contemporary fiction- I don't know if there'll be space left for me to continue caring in the future. And that's a shame.

Lies of P is amazing

 

The other face of my Souls-Like extravaganza was spent in the world of the sixtieth Pinocchio adaptation of 2023- Lies of P. Alongside my struggle through Lords of the Fallen I rewarded myself after every section I dragged myself through with a preciously brief dose of a Lies of P area to make up for the suffering- in doing so offsetting my time with one of the roughest high budgets Souls-likes of all time with what might go down as one of the best of the genre. A game borne from a bizarre adaptation decision that ended up carving a unique model for itself in the market and securing a potential series down the line if they have all their ducks in a row. I am thrilled to say that everything they say about The Lies of P is true- the game is a downright masterpiece of the genre!

When I heard of the premise I'll admit to being a bit sceptical. Dark Fantasy Pinocchio in a Souls-like? Seriously? It sounded like the set-up for a bad joke and I make no apologies for the fact that I straight assumed this would just be throw-away from a premise angle. I always liked the look of the game, from it's delightfully on-point 'world expo' style robots to it's retro 'city of the future' industrialism angle embodied in Kryat. But I figured the heart of the game would at best be gimmicky in it's relation to the story of it's origin and the theme it exposes. Which really rubbed with me because I always saw the Souls-genre as a vehicle for some of the best most medium-effective stories to ever grace gaming. Dark Souls' wider exploration on destructive obsession, Hollow Knight's subversive underground epic- I'm not surprised when new entrants to the genre-type fail to live up to those examples- but I always kind of sad when I see someone not even try. I think Lies is going to be a new game I include up there in these comparisons from here on.

Taking the very nature of 'puppetry' and the theme of 'defining humanity' that is lightly brushed on by the source material, Lies of P presents a story about seeking legitimacy through the pursuit of the abject prospect we call 'humanity' whilst raising the query of what that even is. I won't pretend there's any great insight into the nature of mankind even attempted by this game, but the very strong reigns by which it weaves around these decent mature pillars forms an emotionally resonant and strong-willed narrative that sticks with you. Like any great Anime, it comfortably rests on the edge of significant discourse and weaves a solid narrative in that space.

But the plaudits don't end with the narrative, that's merely where they start. Lies of P follows the footsteps of Sekiro (and I supposed Bloodborne but given how that game is sentenced to forever remain on the PlayStation 4 I'll never be able to validate that for myself.) by taking a more light-footed, dodge and parry approach to the traditional Souls-Like gameplay whilst sticking staunchly to the build variety of other Souls-Like style games. Action is fast paced, death comes quick, but you aren't at the whim of 'learn to time your parries or die'. You can still build to whack around your enemies with a big stick or dodge through attacks to get that perfect back-flurry- of course with that comes some limitations. The biggest one being parrying itself. This game does not offer you nearly the same amount of tools that Sekiro does with it's parrying system. There is no telltail glow, there is no generous parry window, there is merely the promise that if you nail the exact moment of contact (because the deflect is instant) you entirely avoid damage and whittle down their invisible poise meter.

Lies of P really is a very active kind of Souls-Like, where you are encouraged to be aggressive and resourceful with the weapons you use, the Legion Arms you equip and the Sword-arts you pull out in dire situations. Your reward is big damage windows on guard breaking, gorgeous animation work and the kind of cinematic flair when you finally dominate a fight that is really rather rare in this genre simply for the style of games that it encourages. Which is not to say P is as active or dangerous as Sekiro, mind. In fact, given the still 'Experience based' levelling, the generally slower enemies and the forgiving damage-recieved; Lies of P is actually a lot more accessible and easy than Sekiro- in a manner that I think leads a lot of people into a false sense of security before the second half of the game rushes at you with violent abandon. 

P also presents us a visually stunning and interesting world in the fallen city of Kryat, dipped in it's secrets and it's factions and characters. Whilst I think the actual environmental storytelling could do with some work- a lot of the incidental documents you pick up are rather dry pamphlets that offer very little more than what can be gleaned by simply looking at the world around you, or name drops vague historical background not exactly pertinent or additive to current events or themes- there's a clear purpose of design present in every unique district, each area feels cohesive and intent driven- I never feel lost in a maze for the sake of there being a maze or stretching out a level. (Besides, perhaps, the final climb at the end of the game which really does stretch out for a bit!)

And, of course, we have the bosses. Large and small, Lies never falls back on gimmicks to make a fight interesting but rather incorporates spectacle-tipped extravaganzas of moves fast and slow which engender great tests of skill and build- as this genre is best served facilitating. Poise breaking can be somewhat unreliable for bigger bosses, so big-bonk builds aren't always rewarded, but playing more to this game's style- dodges, parrying, blocking and health reclaiming- creates these genuinely solid duels that zoom through so fluidly. Additionally, can I just commend this team for really getting it with all the minutiae about how to give a boss fight. No major boss is ever sprung out of nowhere- you always have a summoning pool outside of big fight arenas to tip you off. Whenever you die your Ergo is placed outside the entrance to the boss, allowing you to retreat and restock if you need it. (because literally nothing is benefitted by locking Souls inside of a boss arena. That's such an antiquated practice.) And you'll find respawn points never further than thirty seconds from the boss- they know the futility of the runback. In terms of fixing points of friction within this genre type, consider Lies of P at the exact opposite end of the spectrum to Lords of the Fallen.

It may have been said before but it bears repeating- Lies of P is pretty much the only Souls game capable of giving FromSoftware a run for their money in the best way. They aren't following the example of FromSoft trying to catch a hint of their magic, they're doing their own thing, iterating where possible and building the foundations of a team worth paying attention to in the years to come. P is very obviously not the extent of their ambitions, the cliffhanger finale is equal parts ridiculous and exciting to consider- and I'll just bet it makes Miyazaki smile to see others finally getting to that point of mastery within this new face of the 'action adventure genre' that he helped bring into this world. And goodness do I hope those rumours about a bubbling DLC are true, because I need more P in my life.

Lords of the Fallen is... interesting...

 

So recently I've been in a bit of a Souls-Like kick- which is to say I've been playing a bunch of them simultaneously in order to catch up with the general state of the genre. Now I have Wolong Fallen Dynasty under my belt which was actually a little short and straightforward for my tastes, finished it way too quickly and recently I finished two in the same day- Lies of P and Lords of the Fallen. (The new one, that is.) And I'm not sure if it has been the act of sharing those two games over the past few days but I feel uniquely touched to comment on the state of what Lords offers and compare it, eventually, with The Lies of P experience to see if this surprise franchise revival was really worth the effort. Do we need Lords of the Fallen to come back into our lives with a sequel that isn't called a sequel for some incomprehensible reason?

Lords of the Fallen picks up on the same world as the original but nearly a thousand years later as entirely new kingdoms and cultures have arisen and protagonists the world over have learned how to keep their bloody mouths shut. No more chatty heroes, just call old fashion character creation- and it's here where I'll award Lords it's first point. Their starting classes hold a bit more significance than those in other Souls-Likes both because of the scarcity of equipment and how laborious the levelling process can be. Meaning you'll likely be setting into largely distinct playstyles from the class selection screen which I've never really experienced before. What's more, each of the three endings you achieve unlocks new powerful special classes that make for fun early roll playing opportunities for your next character. It's all rather thoughtful and "mind on the replayability" which not enough Souls-Likes pay mind to.

Another point worth commending- the controls! Considering that the original Lords of the Fallen was widely lambasted for feeling about as sluggish as everyone assumed Dark Souls felt before they actually played the thing- it really is a point of wide praise that this game feels like one of the most responsive titles on the market right now! From the fluidity of just moving about, the basic range of controls to make the easiest to pull of 'kick' this genre has ever known- I really loved getting the game in my hands whenever I booted it up. I never thought a dodge-based rogue build in a Lords of the Fallen game could actually feel nimble- but the team really stepped up to address the biggest critique of the original and that deserves praise.

And that... that's pretty much the extent of the completely good things I have to say about the new Lords of the Fallen. Everything else comes with a caveat. Yeah, the new world is so much more interesting and full of nuance than the original- but it still feels like garden variety Dark Fantasy with pseudo-Christian themes that someone tried to stretch across an entire game and largely failed. There are actual characters with genuine backstories, but for some reason the team decided to opt for the early Souls-like model of "totally obscure quest paths that are physically incapable of following with a guide because these characters literally sod off any which way without any hint or communication" when all recent Souls-likes have kind of relaxed that kind of practise at least a bit. And sure, you have a breadth of new environments to visit compared to the 'couple' of the original- but some are designed in such a unnecessarily labyrinthian and dragged out manner that it's incredibly easy to get lost and grow frustrated with the seemingly thoughtless level design employed knowingly by these world builders.

Lords of the Fallen feels like a Souls-Like created by a team who, for some reason and to some degree of significance, deeply dislikes Souls-Likes. Or at least- they refuse to play any from the past 5 years to actually learn where the genre has grown to- what it feels like now and how they can match the innovation or at the very least play upon it. It feels like a team made up of those annoying 'Reddit purists' who only accept Demon Souls and the original Dark Souls as 'legitimate' Souls-Likes because they were considered Cult Classics. The second the franchise became a bit more popular they disavowed it and everything those newer games did to feel more accessible and fun because those were 'pandering to the weak mob who can't take the hardships of a dog-ass control scheme where sprint and jump are the same button!" (Thank god 'controls' are the only thing that Lords of the Fallen actually pushed the needle on.)

Rather than literally every other game in this genre that places their focus on either character builds, thrilling bosses or a mixture of both- Lords of the Fallen places the majority of the game focus in everything inbetween bosses. Drawn out gauntlets of mobs, lopping hallway-like design, frustrating puzzles of three types the game seems enamoured with showing off every couple of minutes- it almost feels like they wanted to make a mature action adventure game but seeing as how God of War is the only kind of game in that style which exists in the modern age they thought it was safer to make a Souls-like instead. 

This really comes through in the bosses- many of which are built around large-scale gimmicks that colourise the fight rather than conflict to test one's build against. You'll have to knock an enemy off their horse by exploding soul-pods at the right time, dart between endlessly spawning dogs in order to take down an archer, flirt with an umbral ghost whilst a giant demon crow pulls a bullet hell on your head. It's all very creative stuff, but not necessarily additive to a Souls-like style game- at least until the late game where the team throw so many more traditional boss fights at you one after the other that it feels like they kind of ran out of time to properly build and balance it all. One fight in particular is against an enemy with such a rudimentary and basic moveset that the team just shrugged their shoulders and trapped the battle in a box so embarrassingly tiny that you simply can't play normally for all the splashing colour effects blinding the whole screen. It's that kind of stuff that makes it feel like this was a game designed intentionally against it's own better nature.

Lords of the Fallen is a vast improvement over the original game and if this had released in place of the original I think this franchise would be brought up in conversations about Souls-Likes a lot more often, but given all the many years of incremental and substantial improvements the genre type has gone through over the years, all of which this game seems wistfully oblivious to, it's hard to rate this against it's peers. Lords never learned how to deal with enemy composition in a manner that doesn't feel random and amateurish, never learned organic level design that doesn't span out like unnatural padding drowning out the world's artistry. They never even learnt how to do New Game plus and just slapped modifiers on all the enemy health pools. To be fair, most Souls-Likes don't really know how to handle these modes either- so I guess they're no different in that regard. For me, my playthrough ended when I finished the game, clicked on new game +- the game crashed and then spawned me in the inferno field with no means of escape essentially bricking my save. Lords in a nutshell- a non-starter. C-.

So what happened with Atomic Heart?

 

Let me start this off by saying that I have not finished the game Atomic Heart, I've played about enough to get a full idea of what this game has to offer in it's various verticals- and in doing so have played past several 'breaking points' that, were I not invested enough to want to get to the bottom of what happened to the promise of this game, I would have taken as fuel enough to quit. Especially considering I haven't actually purchased the game but am merely playing through game pass, thus voiding typical 'buyers remorse' levels of needing to squeeze the most out of every odd purchase. And I want to dive into this topic because unlike with most games out there- I was into Atomic Heart for years now. I covered this game before it started doing the E3 replacement circuit, I was following the benchmarks downloaded from their websites- I was in the trenches! And then the game came out and I was warded away.

To be honest I had totally overlooked the reasons why I didn't pick this game up at launch. The surly and unimpressed opinions from contemporaries had all vanished to the back of my recollection when I saw this on Gamepass and merely went "Oh, I wanna play that!" But just as with that CGI moustache on Henry Cavil's face, the problems crept up naturally to scupper what would otherwise be a supremely worthwhile Bioshock-lite experience to the point where I'm collating my opinions now because honestly- I'm not sure whether or not I'm going to stick around long enough to actually finish this game. Which seems unthinkable for a shooter I waited so long to get my hands on! At the very least I can say there's more keeping me around than there was for Callisto Protocol. For what that's worth.

First off I need to extol the rare virtues of Atomic Heart- from a point of design and raw graphical fidelity Atomic Heart rivals most AAA games. It has a gleam that is undeniable, artistic consistency, a thematic spine- the world of a technology-powered sci-fantastical Soviet wonder-future is borne out through the world itself. Even the prettiest AAA games out there struggle to nail design philosophy nearly as well as Atomic Heart does- and if this game were little more than a 3D gallery through a dreamed alternative reality this game would hold a fond place in my heart for being a delightful exhibition worthy of the time to explore. I cannot understate how genuinely impressive the art for this game is.

Which is why I find it so wholly upsetting that nearly everything else the game has to offer lets it down aside from... the music- I guess. Mick Gordon's contributions are unmissable and stirring. From an actual systems standpoint Atomic Heart seems to lack any coherent direction whatsoever! You chucked into lazy amalgamations of enemy compositions shoved over too large play spaces way too often. The game smothers you in pick-ups yet inherits a Resident Evil 4 style attaché-suitcase inventory system to play at being a resource-stingy survival horror- which it isn't. All the special elemental powers are literally dropped into your possible arsenal the second you unlock upgrading without taking the time to introduce them and present their gameplay utility individually- borrowing a key gameplay system from Bioshock without really understanding how to implement it. It seems utterly insane to say this given the amount of visible polish you see from this game but it all just seems... rather amateurish under the hood.

And then we get to the dialogue. When I talked about the artistic consistency of the world I rather intentionally left out one core element of that 'art'- and that would be the story and the writing. Because whilst the world bends over backwards to present this tangibly intangible techno-utopia pulled apart at the seams; begging to be taken seriously- the script does everything in it's power to undermine that to nearly a hilarious degree. Every aspect of the world is explained ad nauseum by your glove companion as though the visual storytelling is totally incapable of silently conveying use of purpose. All the main characters way-too-often vocal contributions are badly conceived jerky quips spurred by some inner snarky hatred towards everything that makes him come across as a terminally petulant child who is unduly annoyed by literally everything. Tone is shattered by inappropriately timed marvel-punchlines with flat jokes. gravitas dies in the throats of even the most ostensibly distinguished characters before it reaches their lips. Every character seems to have been constructed around one core characteristic which informs everything they are and that characteristic is usually sarcasm. This game is written like a forgettable B-movie comedy- but it presents like a multimillion dollar blockbuster.

Which brings me onwards to the actual vocal performances. What is the one thing worse than having comically uncomedic dialogue? Giving it to a cast that seem incapable of performing it convincingly. Not a cast so terrible as to be entertaining, but just bad enough to be mediocre. The worst of all worlds. Or protagonist seems to struggle intoning his usually frustrated line reads- or even sounding like he is grounded in the life-or-death scenarios around him. Listening to him lightly grunt whilst being tossed around like a ragdoll by a giant death robot makes me wonder if this cast even had a vocal director present at all! And some of the less farcical but still not exactly gleaming line reads, such as those belonging to Sechenov, could have really been elevated to be something by an actor with some level of gravitas to them! You could argue it's a dub issue, which it is; but at that point the main dub should have just been the Russian dub then, shouldn't it? (And besides, changing the dub doesn't change the mediocre written dialogue, does it?) 

The gunplay is serviceable. Sound design feels weak, weapon variety is a bit lacking in the early game (I suspect if I can stand to stick with it that criticism with peter out later.) Enemies just seem to all rush you- which makes group attacks an absolute cluster. (Which is great because that is what the entire open world consists of!) Melee combat lacks punch. Powers don't seem to interact with the environment or each other. It's just fine. Which as far as systems go in this game might as well be a glowing endorsement- but it certainly doesn't hold a candle to other dedicated shooters, not even old Bioshock titles and certainly not modern DOOM as I've seen some truly delusional defenders try to claim. (Making that comparison ought to qualify one for a free psychiatric evaluation.)

But where the game really starts to fall apart is when it comes to the open world. You've probably already heard it all but I need to get it out of my system- I have no idea if the game's director had a vision for this part of the game. Suburban hills built with prefabs lacking in meaningful reasons to explore drowning in thoughtlessly placed robots that summon entire armies if you are seen fighting with the several dozen cameras placed on every street corner. Cameras that get automatically repaired if you take the time to destroy one by the endlessly respawning sky drones. (I actually think there's a late-game way of disabling those drones but I haven't seen it yet.) Endless hoards of robots spawn as though this is DOOM, even though we're in a game where basic resources, such as ammunition, are trapped behind a pointless crafting system- meaning you rarely get to pick up bullets, instead you pick up resources that need to be converted into ammo at a crafting bench and then slotted into the limited inventory spaces in your RE4 style attaché case- it's just a mess of ill-fitting design concepts lifted from different games and genres and supplanted into an unfocused jumble. It is, once again, amateurish. 

So much of how this game tries to present itself feels primed for comparison to Bioshock. From the alternative world view extolling a particular political extreme to exaggerated propositions to the elemental power suite designed to supplement gameplay, to the allusion to scarce resources- (that don't actually pan out to the gameplay) and even the very level layout that takes us to distinct environments inside a once-functional facility: like distinctly unique lungs in a bizarre amalgam of a body. But the disconsonant nature of the execution sorely fails to replicate what made that franchise special. It feels clumsy and unintentional, badly designed, badly directed and poorly written. But the art team pulled a miracle out their hats to make the outward face so darned pretty. If this game looked like the old STALKER Games, with the same mess of systems currently present, I genuinely think this game wouldn't have crossed a single radar. So I hope those designers got a raise for their efforts, because they were the only one's in this entire project holding Atomic Heart together.

Goodbye Halo

 

There really has been some huge leaps forward when it has come to the representation of game franchises on the silver screen. Fallout for one has jumped leaps and bounds ahead to be a budding TV series worth calling the masses in- The Last of Us nailed one fantastic series and is currently grappling how best to craft a story out of the narratively confused sequel. And Resident Evil... well, the less said about that series the better to be honest. And in all that space there has been one show that thread the gap. One show that wasn't the absolute pits like RE, but paled in comparison to the source material to such a degree it almost felt like the team actively hated the game it was birthed from. Halo the TV series never could figure out where to land.

One on side you had some actually great snippets of action that felt like they came right out of the game, and on the otherside you have direct undermining of some of the core game's world design aspects in a manner that seemed to miss the point of the source material. Which is particularly perplexing as Halo is not a thematically complex franchise- you'd have to try to not nail it. In fact, some the ways that the show treated the relationships that the Spartans held with the UNSC, the presentation of the Covenant war, the presence of the Halo rings and even the relevance of Cortana seemed utterly perfunctory. Like these were skins placed atop an entirely separate sci-fi story in order to create the illusion that these series was somehow related to the Halo people loved.

The 'Silver Timeline' quote has done so much heavily lifting in this show's defence, irregardless of the fact that even alternate timelines should retain some vague spirit of the original timeline in order to be relevantly 'alternative' to begin with. There is a baseline to work off of, for goodness sake! But it seems that the original showrunners actively held no regard for video games as a storytelling medium and simply tried to leapfrog off the franchise to propel their own careers, and the later showrunners were just left with a faulty ship to try and correct. But there was little to be done. Master Chief barely resembled his video game counterpart- the Covenant somehow ended up as side-characters in their own war, the first Halo ring couldn't even make it into the first series. Reach fell far too quickly. Master Chief committed a sexual war crime- the ship had already taken on too much water before the new captain took the helm.

And it is within that light, and the vastly unimpressed reactions the series accrued, that I lack any surprise to the announcement that the Halo series has now been cancelled right in the middle of it's run-up to season 3. Paramount has cut ties to the franchise it spent nigh on five years trying to bring to life (maybe more) and right now the showrunners are left with the rights to shop around for a perspective third party to pick up and run with. Honestly it's what I expected largely, just as I honestly do expect someone to pick this up and try to do something new with it. I can certainly see Netflix looking around at the popular video game franchises going around and wondering why they haven't got their own yet. But the big question persists, should they? Should anyone pick this series up again?

First off; it seems that Halo doesn't gell with modern show creation inclinations. Halo is symbolised by it's faceless protagonist but the outwardly superficial and pretentious people who make TV nowadays simply can't fathom a TV series without a pretty face on the front of everything. Sure, Pablo and his team disingenuously discard the honest question of why the literally faceless protagonist series needs a mug whilst freakin' Star Wars managed to pull off the faceless protagonist thing with no problems- because the truth is they're scared to rely on the integrity of a product they aren't interested in trying to understand. And if even the basemost aspect, the most perfunctory accessory, of the brand you are attempting to work eludes you so fully- maybe you're out of your depth! Just a little.

All the hallmarks of generic fantasy are present and inseparable from this story. Overtly evil militaristic humans, badly implemented chosen one garbage- (even the real Halo started falling for this one around Halo 4, before abandoning it pretty much entirely for Halo 5.) and godawful enemies-to-lovers romance. None of which represents the franchise, all of which comes to odds with the fanbase- and most of which will need to be preserved in some fashion should this series be revived. Even if the best comes to pass and an absolute diehard takes control of the franchise- without pulling a total reboot- something unheard of in a TV series, it's going to go down the exact same route the previous two series' went. Disappointing everyone and then getting cancelled. Why waste the money?

At the end of the day when everyone is just sitting around waiting for the next action scene to pop up so that they can point at the screen like Leonardo DiCaprio- maybe you're better not making a story based series. It's kind of like The Acolyte for Disney. The action stuff is all great and does gangbusters reuploaded to Youtube- so maybe the special effects department are better off just throwing together cool compilations of action set pieces. Sure, maybe that will seem a little rudimentary to the minds of traditional film makers- but I bet that would generate a lot more interest, traffic and, most importantly, money than what they're currently committing to. If this has to persist- do it like that.

So we say goodbye to bad rubbish with the end of Halo- yet another sacrifice at the altar of 'bad adaptation to superior material'. There really is no winners when these unfaithful diatribes into self indulgent trite are allowed to proceed and their agonising decline hurts literally everyone- the runners, the fans, the very industry itself. Maybe a little more scrutiny should go into place deciding who gets to make these products in the long run so we can avoid another disaster like this. But then again, that would also necessitate we avoid another disaster like Resident Evil- and I'd loathe to miss out on that!

Game pass is bleeding

 

Game Pass is known as 'the greatest deal in gaming' for a good reason. For a nominal fee you get access to a simply obscene amount of games that you can play without restriction as though you were logging into the 'Netflix-of-gaming': as it is sometimes charitably called. And that deal is made all the more exciting by the fact that many of these games are literally day-one releases dropping on the platform and on Gamepass at the exact same moment. Throw into that the fact that PC players can throw themselves in too with the Ultimate edition (although that does necessitate use of the Microsoft storefront which might actually be the single worst launcher on the PC) and there really is nothing like Gamepass. It's a deal that seems too good to be true. And that's because it is. And when a deal is too good to be true, it's only a matter of time before that deal will no longer be true.

What makes Gamepass so utterly ridiculous is the fact that given the price you have to play anyone would be saving almost hundreds for access to AAA tier games, albeit at the whim of Microsoft and their unclear deals which can sometimes line up that one game you were interested in to be pulled off the platform when within the next few weeks when you aren't expecting it. I think most would consider Game Pass to be one of those 'dip in services' to go through a lot of those games that they would otherwise never buy themselves. That was how I got around to playing through 'Lords of the Fallen' and... yeah, I would probably feel pretty jipped if I played full price to play a Soulslike played by a team who seem to deeply dislike the genre and what it stands for. But at least I can experience it's very good control scheme for myself!

But what does this deal mean on behalf of the actual people who make and sell the things? I mean sure they get their money and an influx of players- but can they rely on that small percentage of players to stick around and buy the game after they're done with it? Or can Live Services depend on that audience when the next update rolls around and the game is no longer on the service? And what happens when the culture on Xbox starts to disincentive the buying of games altogether? All pertinent and worrying queries at present. Some developers have even grumbled if the deal is wholly worth it on their end- although that doesn't seem to be the overwhelming opinion as of yet.

Still- Game Pass exists as perhaps the sole bastion of the Xbox platform worth flocking to, given that their first party deluge of upcoming games is still too far away to rely on. Which of course means it is going to be the pressure point that the Xbox team steps on when they need to justify themselves to Microsoft in the midst of a slow growth season. And yet- one might argue that stepping on such a system, the sole one you rely on, would be the single best way to- how do they say- bite the hand that feeds you? Really a 'push and pull' dilemma with this one, it would seem. I suppose we'll learn which way this ends up leaning for Xbox given their coming changes to pricing.

Yes, you've probably already heard. Game Pass is currently undergoing a total restructuring of it's plans in order to make itself actively worse all around whilst scoring major 'asshole' points by spouting out that "this is for player choice" bull that every cretin parrots whenever they're sticking their hand in your pocket and trying to get out clean. Game Pass is losing it's console only version of it's service and now offering a new tier of subscription that forgoes the single best perk of Game pass- the ability to play fresh games pretty much right away. The allure of being able to rattle through 200 dollars worth of games on a cheap subscription that you hop off of when you're done is pretty much the golden goose of the Xbox platform and sacrificing that is kind of like murdering your cash cow.

Now the Ultimate Subscription remains untouched- we still get day-one games as soon as they drop, but we're getting a cost increase punishment for our sins of simply enjoying the service because, you know, 'player choice' and all that. What's crazy is that Game Pass is following the 'slowly bleed out our accessibility' path that Netflix has been doing for years now, having just removed the Netflix basic subscription plan, only Xbox has no competitors to fall back on for a straw-man. They made this choice all of their own and we're suffering the consequences- all so that Xbox can justify that unhinged spending spree form a few years back to their investors. All to pay for not-even-exclusive access to Call of Duty. Was it worth it?

The new Game Pass deal moves in a direction that takes away from players, guts the service they've grown used to and ups the price around the board for everyone except the PC exclusive Game Pass users. All whilst the company are seemingly trying to increase the coverage of Game Pass to other consoles- if that's not something they have altogether given up on at this point. So what does this realistically leave Xbox fans with? The gnawing sensation that their deals are moving towards the worse-off end of things and Xbox is in trouble, eating at it's own tail in order to make ends meet. The same feeling we've had over us ever since studios started shutting down earlier this very year.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call this the slow death of the Xbox brand continuing, or a stimulus package for the upper parties at the expense of us lesser- but I do know that I hate coming back to Xbox and seeing it's value shrivel more and more with each passing month. Nothing substantive coming with a real release date, their only unique offerings becoming worse and more expensive- what real reason is there to own an Xbox in the modern age? It's smaller than the PS5 and thus can fit on your desk much neater. Really wish there was more to it than just that, to be honest. Really wish I can say something mattered underneath the hood.

We live in a time of shifting realities. Where institutions are falling to the unexpected other choice. Indie Games make up the majority of most played games on Steam, Crime Boss Rockay City is out stripping Payday 3 in recurrent numbers and Xbox are making all the kinds of greedy goodwill-rotting decisions that a company only really has the luxury to make when they are the number one- whilst they currently sit dead last in the console race. Time and time again we ask ourselves why. There was a time when Gamepass really did have a shot at rising the Xbox brand- but at the first sign of trouble Xbox does what it always does- freak out and start making panic cuts. One of these days those panic cuts are going to hit an artery, and then all we'll be able to do is watch with our arms crossed as the great beast gurgles on it's own life juices shaking our heads and muttering "We told you so."

Battle Pass Belittling

 

We all have those pet peeves that seem to affect us and only us in ways that seem indescribable to the outside world and for me that nagging sensation currently pertains to Battle Passes and their normalisation within the gaming world. I think it's because I see through the pretence to exactly what they are, weaponizations of 'Fomo' with the intent of seizing control of player's freetime in order to tell them exactly what they should be playing when. I despise having my spare time decided for me by my own media, and thus I hate Battle Passes. Really is that simple when you break it down to brass tack, isn't it? But, of course, they are far too prevalent across the world today for me to try and avoid them in everything I play, now aren't they?

And to be fair I understand what the promise of a Battle Pass is meant to be. Rewarding players for sticking with the game, giving them something to periodically work for in their favourite games- that can really work! I remember such a system in Ghost Recon Wildlands really bringing me back to the game time and time again- although that might have also been because you didn't have to sit down and pay for that content- simply engage with the game and following the small drops of content every few months. Really cool stuff. And I know that even some of the paid Battle Passes work out for some people- reinforcing the season, drawing the community together, giving online games that pumping life blood they need to survive. I 'get' it. So to speak.

They really can work, the old 'Battle pass', when the team actually take the effort to make them engaging- give them worthwhile content, not overload their progression with unnecessary roadblocks and maybe even just giving us a purpose to actually engage with it. (Although it truly is telling how few games out there actually try to tie in the world of their monetisation and their game. Almost as though they don't consider that a part of their art or something.) A truly lazy Battlepass can feel like a ball and chain on your leg keeping you captive of the game and it's seasons. Especially with the 'get your credits back' system which demands you play until the bitter end of the season in order to score enough credits to buy the next pass- literally putting your wallet on the line.

It all ties into the way that Live Services are feeding into standard game model. If a concept doesn't have a solid enough identity to fully define itself- some slimy executive will slide in with the trappings of the Live Service to try and score a promotion. Monetisation and constant development are exhausting the gaming world from both ends- developers and players- and we're really starting to see it's effects glare on the welts of the people. You've got Naughty Dog straight rejecting Sony, throwing up an ultimatum between high quality games or a single Live Service. You've got smaller devs straight up calling it a death sentence on games, with growing evidence supporting that perception, you've got the increasing drain on narrative enrichment present in those few examples of the genre that are actually long lasting with Overwatch and Call of Duty essentially losing all sense of identity with the way they support their current seasons! And you've got the increasing truth that even the best of the industry, the examples to the genre, eventually run out of steam and fall on their sword.

Apex Legends was a game I have up on a long time ago when I saw the way they wanted to support their season, the absolute dismissal of an 'apology' they offered, and saw the absolute writing on the wall. It seems those chickens are finally coming home to roost because with the sudden change to the way that their Battlepasses function- many players are starting to seriously reconsider their relationship to the franchise they gave their fandom too. It's a shame too, because fans had actually been grumbling about the problems with the Battle Pass for ages now, the unreasonable length, the depreciating value on offer- but it would seem that the page the community were on and the page that the development team were on came from two separate volumes entirely.

Firstly, Apex are pressing their boots on the necks of players with two battle passes per season- really ramping up the 'fear of missing out' so that you don't have time to play literally anything else if you want all the rewards. (Stuff that 'Player choice, go for what you want!' bull- we all know they're trying to feed on the 'desire to earn as many rewards as possible' desire intrinsic to us all) You'll also no longer be able to afford buying the special Battle Pass with in game funds, which at the very least means people won't feel incentivised to grind out currency in the current pass in order to cost effectively afford the next one. Now cost effectiveness doesn't exist at all, which is... better? Oh and because there are two Battle Passes a season- I guess that means you need double the money in order to get all 120 rewards? Yeah, I'm not sure why they didn't see this backlash coming...

Live Services have to subsist off recurrent monetisation models in order to justify continued investment- that makes sense- but the balance of that monetisation seems like an absolute arcane mystery to these companies that have been making nothing but Live Services for years now! You'd have thought that Apex would now the pressure points of their players well enough to handle and change with care, but they ended up bungling the revision nearly as badly as Ubisoft managed to do with Siege! (Although I'd argue that Ubi remain the kinds of bad practices in that regard.) Of course, it's on a superficial outcry. Apex fans are addicts with nowhere else to turn to- and perhaps that is what the team are counting on. Abusing those that aren't powerful enough to leave. Fair enough business model, I guess. 

Still yet more evidence to why the Battle Pass model is like a leash around gamer's necks forcing them into never ceasing servitude. Oh it's better than some item store fronts for sure- Diablo 4 charges $20 per cosmetic outfit- but when the value proposition isn't there- and when the developer response is to make the same amount of content, albeit split into two tiers, with a higher price tag: you have to wonder if there's any point at which video game monetisation for these styles of games is ever going to reach a point that doesn't feel straight exploitative of your fandom. Maybe in a world like Helldivers 2 where the value feels appropriate, but even then could the Helldivers model work if that game and developer were as big as Respawn? I think that snake is eating it's own tail, and there's no way out of that cycle of torment.