Bobby's bounced

 Kotick Down

So Robert Kotick has officially flown the coop. He has based jumped off the top of the Activision ladder with his pockets stuffed full of bills and bullion and his parachute glinting a special gleam of glorious gold. The man has succeeded to such an extent that the many alleged crimes that he committed, actual crimes not just crimes against art, have bounced off him like water off the back of a duck and now he is free to pollute some other business with his presence and start the cycle all over again, all whilst giving that rodent-like grin he saved for all of his public press photos that make him look like discount Peter Pettigrew. (I know: "Personal insults- so mature!" But the guy is a colossus now, I hardly think a snide comment on his wavering public image is going to hurt the man's pride.)

Bobby is a mystery of a man all to himself, slipping from business to business all of his life before landing on the Activision train that he decided to suck dry. You can't call him a career business creep that fell into the world of gaming, because Bobby was hovering our industry like a vulture for years before taking his top role, picking at the body- trying to extract whatever carrion the man could stuff down his maw. I would imagine there was even a time where his presence was looked on with some sort of respect, or even favourability. A man with as long as a tenure as he commands some natural aura of intrigue and consideration. Luckily, though, the rot beneath the flesh is never quite so easy to hide, and Bobby leaves us all glaring red for all of his many faults. So let us all shout them out before he publishes a book deflecting all of them onto other people.

Kotick has been a plague which has slowly picked up more and more steam as the years have gone by to the extent of serious business wide ramifications. We know that Kotick made significant effort to do nothing about and cover up the sexual harassment claims bubbling about his office- facilitating it's perpetuation into the work culture. Kotick was revealed to have voiced a message for assistants back in 2006, threatening to have them killed. Bobby is implicated in several improper termination disputes wherein he is alleged to have cut people from the payroll that might be considered 'problematic' or 'trouble starters'. And to round things out I do believe he is also listed in the Epstein flight logs- which is just a really bad look ontop of everything else, now isn't it?

Of course, the real measure for the person that someone truly is does not fall on solely on their public perception. Afterall, who's to say that Bobby isn't just the lightning rod martyr absorbing all of the controversies of a rotten system, burning on the cross for everybody else's sins? (Excluding the flight-logs thing. Not much can be said in defence of that.) But you can get a better grasp of who the person is by the opinions of the people they leave behind. Afterall, what is legacy but the living imprint of our lives left on the faces of all those who remain? And what exactly does Bobby's Legacy say about him? Hmm? Oh, the moment he was officially out the company there were already tweets of former employees wishing upon him to digest faecal matter. So we'll call his legacy 'mixed', shall we?

A senior world designer for WOW leapt up to let his feelings known with a very aggressive "Eat s*** Bobby Kotick you pathetic ghoul, waste the millions you didn't earn from people whose talent and light you will never understand." Which highlights one of the key contentions about the man. You see, Bobby wasn't just morally bad, but the guy was bad for business. On the level of who he is drawing controversy, and by the account of some even to the decisions he made that ended up scuppering the quality of products under his supervision. This is a real 'he said, she said' sort of situation, but it can't be denied that Blizzard's reputation has gone off a cliff in the past few decades, whereas once they were a bastion of player-championing heroes- now they are a cistern for the worst practices across the industry. How much of that is directly Bobby's fault? Well, even if none of it was due to his direct interference, that reputation dithered under his watch- thus he takes responsibility.

We have a COD designer coming out to label Bobby directly as a cause for their games being made worse. (Which is quite the change in tune from the last time we heard about COD devs discussing their games! I though COD gets more playtime which makes it the best game ever made and better than multiple award winning title: God of War!) Another claims that the Overwatch team was well aware of the hate storm they would receive for launching on Steam- (which was somewhat deserved given their blatantly misleading advertising selling a key design aspect of the game that was scrapped before launch) but received no additional support thanks to the executive choice of Bobby; who probably couldn't have cared less when he made that decision.

Although few have more bones to pick with Kotick than the nation of China, from whom every beloved Blizzard game was ripped following a dissolution in the relationship between Activision Blizzard and their Chinese partners- because of Kotick's many controversies. World of Warcraft's gigantic Chinese player base had their servers indefinitely withdrawn thanks to his machinations and that counts literal decades of gaming history thrown in a vault and locked away. Needless to say those effected were bitter, burning effigies and raising metaphorical middle fingers across the ocean, and they among the rest of the world see Bobby's flight as a happy development in these companies trajectory- although that bridge won't be automatically healed anytime soon. Bobby's destruction lives past his departure.

Bobby's reputation has made him the boogey man of the games industry for many years, and I'm quite curious to see just how much of the industry he helped shape is going to take advantage of his absence to mold itself into something better. My suspicion, is that the vacuum he leaves is only going to become clotted up by the deluge of identical sycophantic cronies he has groomed into following his every tradition. Activision Blizzard aren't free of the monster, they're simply orphaned and helpless for the next despot to don their crown and become the subject of the industries spite and hatred. And Bobby will just be remembered as the old dark lord. Like the Morgoth to our coming Sauron. That's just my take though, who knows where we're going?

Modern Woefare

Not my best pun

I'll admit, I've been something of a lax friend towards my old pal Call of Duty lately. The franchise was a staunch companion of my youth, the hours me and my dad spent playing Spec-ops across Modern Warfare 2 are cherished in my heart. But I've not called. Ever since Modern Warfare 3 I've treated the franchise like the overpriced vaguely eastern-European landlord constantly hounding me every year for '$60' rent in order to jump aboard the next iteration of his franchise. ($70 nowadays!) In the times when I relent, typically around another's house or during trial play events, I'm always impressed by how perfectly refined the COD gameplay has become, which makes it all the sadder that I can't justify forking out the funds for a franchise that has increasingly favoured it's online features over the once flagship campaigns which got everyone talking, like the action-movie 'Fast and Furious's of the gaming world. (You'll get my £70 when you fix your damn campaign!)

I rolled my eyes hard when they ran out of steam and decided to trace their own steps in the sand by literally remaking Modern Warfare, their most successful game, although from all reports the effort that went into that first one was truly astounding! That is to say, the effort that went into the actual Modern Warfare remake, not the remaster for the original which released a stone's throw away. (God, Activision make this franchise so bloody confusing to follow.) I was rather intrigued by the way the game seemed to tell us more about the character's we loved, less like it was replacing the originals and more just recontextualing those action movie originals with a more sedate, yet differently intense modern military thriller. (With a light bit of rewriting real world war crimes thrown in there for good measure.) There really wasn't any sadly gunning for old classic story beats, which made the overlapping naming convention utterly pointless, but there we are.

Modern Warfare 2 was not quite as interesting on the campaign front, but it tried to expand out what the first game had established and provided enough campaign thrills to be interesting. See that's the thing about Call of Duty Campaigns, even when the writing isn't exactly top-notch- the mission design is the one thing they can always fall back on. They're fun and cinematic and old school in a world of games constantly falling for the 'open world' trap without any real idea of how to make open worlds that are fun to navigate. COD's tighter mission based layout feels appropriate and effective, and allows for some truly memorable little campaigns like the 'Cold War' story with it's slight multiple path variations. It's good that Call of Duty has some staunch fundamentals it can always rely on- huh? Oh, they got rid of the linear mission design, didn't they?

It's hard to really sum up everything that the Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 campaign did wrong in order to earn their historic 4 from IGN, without just throwing away the list of carefully curated tallies and just saying screw it- they did EVERYTHING wrong! Giving players early access to only the campaign of Modern Warfare 3 should have been a warning sign that this was something the team wanted to slip out as quietly as possible, but their ploy didn't work. Fans played it, and they are pissed. Reactions are so bad that I've heard some wonder if MW3's campaign isn't somehow worse than Black Ops 4's. Black Ops 4 didn't have a campaign, they forgot to make one. Even 'Vanguard' is somehow winning 20-20 wistful memories despite it's awful 'momentum-free anthology dependent' campaign, gimmicky 'modern-Battlefield' style level structure and Lord of the Ring's Merry as a Nazi. (Seriously. I couldn't stop laughing.) What did MW3 do so bad to make those the good old days?

When the announcement was first made that COD was going 'open world' in it's mission layout, there was nary a single unraised brow from the peanut gallery. No one believed it would be a good idea. And now that it's here- wow it's even worse than we could have imagined! These missions, 'open combat' as they're known, basically chalk up as Infinity Ward's attempt to fill space. They are all maps taken from Warzone, thrown into the game with the most pathetically basic objectives ever (go here pick this up then extract) strung together by high quality but dissonant cutscenes stringer together by a lethargic narrative. It's pathetically no effort, requiring no assets, no design, nothing but voice over dialogue justifying the adventure. All those carefully designed globetrotting antics are thrown out for something a modder could have slapped together in a week. The few actual narrative missions tossed in there inbetween aren't enough to mount anything near the same level of cinematic excellence this franchise is used to. (Their version of 'No Russian' is pretty pathetic.)

Speaking of- I don't know what happened but somewhere along the line it seems the new Modern Warfare games gave up on telling their own much more grounded and intense narrative and have now begun chasing after the big set piece moments of Modern Warfare 2 and 3 like a lost child, resulting in the stumbling mess which is the Modern Warfare 3 Remake narrative. Full to the brim of half-hearted reimaginations of classic video games scenes that are so rushed and badly executed it fills like the writers (if indeed this mess had any writers) are simply trying to tick down as many checkmarks as they could to try and bring this in line with the original trilogy. The MacTavish key scene was almost hilarious in how stupid it is, I've already spat at their idea for No Russian, (You can tell someone only put thought in the planning stages of the narrative, but wasn't there to help design an actual playable mission which wasn't two minutes long.) but I think it's Shepard's fare which got the worst glow up. They traded an incredible two man assault cinematic climax against Shepard's rogue faction resulting in a three way fist fight and the knife throw of destiny- with a backroom silencer. In an end-credits cutscene. Pretty weak for a TV show, pathetic for a video game.

But you know what, I'm not even out of steam yet! Sure, the Modern Warfare 3 multiplayer has yet to drop (And I couldn't care less about it anyway) but can we just stop and talk about the logistics of this game for a minute? A maximum 213GB install size, are you stupid? In what world does this skeleton of a game require more than a fifth of total storage? It's not like COD games are the biggest in the industry in terms of content, so why in the hell are they always the biggest to download? I may be talking out my ass here, but this smells like embarrassingly bad optimisation choices. I remember back in the day they used to claim the game's audio files came unencrypted in order to not comprise on the all-important sound front, but that was back when these games clocked in at the 80GB mark, what is going on now? Did someone record themselves reading the entirety of War and Peace and leave it in the files? And no, the fact the game can be downloaded in parts is not a remedy, it's a salve to the wound. Heck, the campaign somehow clocks in at something close to 40GB some insane how, despite consisting of only cutscenes and recycled maps. 

I didn't think it was possible to be disappointed by a Call of Duty game, a franchise for which I suspect most expect nothing. But this is a disgrace to the art of design, of writing, of digital execution, of marketing price points. A campaign like this can only be made by a team who either got slapped together at gunpoint to pull this off in under two months, or a cabal of developers who've just had enough of creating altogether and what to demonstrate how absolutely done with their career paths they are- because those are the only extremes that would justify this assault on taste. And yes, I am angry with Call of Duty. Angry because I know where this leads to. I know what is next for the industry. I know that others are going to see this and figure they can get away with screwing single player fans because they 'don't matter' and I know DICE is seeing all this and believing themselves relieved of all the rightful condemnation they get for abandoning narratives altogether after Battlefield 4.

Microsoft's fight is over

 The FTC has been beaten

In a turn of events that I think might have honestly been a shock to quite a number of people out there, the FTC lost their court case to validate the blocking of Microsoft's 70-odd billion purchase of Activision, giving the go ahead for what I think might be the biggest tech acquisition in history. Which means, of course, that Bobby can now afford to pay off the next round of lawsuits coming his way for whatever new skeletons are waiting to tumble out of that man's closet. Oh, and that by the time you read this it's very likely that Activision is the newest member of the extended Xbox family and Sony can pat themselves on the back for successful wasting nearly a year of progress that Microsoft could have embarked on with their new beau's. All in all I call this a wholly successful operation for everyone who isn't a regulation body.

In their attempt to try and prove that Microsoft were shooting for some sort of crippling monopoly that would twist the hands of consumers until they were all forced to buy an Xbox, instead FTC uncovered mountains of evidence to suggest the opposite- with a partnership in the works we'd be seeing these games on even more platforms. Heck, one leak even revealed that Call of Duty will be making it's grand return to Nintendo consoles following the wrap-up of this deal, which should fill any veterans of DS Black Ops with a piquant dreadful terror. Activision aren't going to be making any of it's existing franchises private and though the question of cloud gaming was also a raised issue, it seems this first accusation was what the judge of this case leaned heavily on to dismiss the charge.

Of course, this means that now the only governing body with the power to threaten this deal is ours, and I don't think the UK has quite as much pull as the FTC does. That being said, Microsoft managed to come to a mildly amicable middle ground whilst they try to speed along proceedings before the deal's mandatory closing date- so the small ants of a body that makes up our regulatory team can pretend they've won a small victory when Microsoft agree to ship them a Rhode Island hotdog every month or whatever equally as pointless boon our boys will attempt to squeeze out the stone. At this point the only thing that could stop the deal is Microsoft themselves getting cold feet before the altar and bailing which- my god it would actually be really funny if that happened, I kind of want it to now!

Now this means that Microsoft can finally get their hands on the one asset of the gaming market they've never been able to nail down, the one chunk of solid shining money-printing gold they were desperate to spend over 50 billion to ascertain. No, not Call of Duty- Microsoft wanted their hands on that unlimited money glitch called 'already profitable mobile games'. You can bet that mobile market was what the big M was gunning for all this time- how else do they expect to make a profit on a deal this big? I wouldn't be surprised if the next Microsoft direct is filthy with god-awful new mobile adaptations of Activision franchises. Although I will absolutely give them an ironic cheer if World of Warcraft Mobile becomes a thing. I cannot understand why it hasn't already, it seems like an absolute no brainer way to reinvigorate the game's fanbase.

Sony are ostensibly the 'losers' of this little bout, having kicked up a stink about 'anti-competitive' behaviour and showing themselves as petulant hypocrites in the process, whilst uncovering through leaked documents that Microsoft could, should they have a change in heart and morals, utterly eviscerate Sony and buy them out the market. Now it's good for everyone that Microsoft has some handle on their darker selves, but that is quite the axe to suddenly realise was dangling over your neck this whole time. I mean sure, we all knew that Xbox's paymasters were ten times bigger than Playstation's; but I think we all just assumed that Xbox weren't allowed in daddy Microsoft's pocket. Turns out they are, and that's a scary thought for the entire industry come the day that conscientious leaders like Phil Spencer are no longer around to keep the brand somewhat honest.

Of course, Nintendo have skirted all around this entire back and forth despite the very real fact that Nintendo have been peddling their oppressive pricing systems and insular game markets for time immemorial. Brands bigger than COD, such as Pokémon, live only on Nintendo hardware and no one is bothering to kick up any fuss about that! Of course, Nintendo aren't also trying to get into the Game Streaming market, but I'd bet they'd love to give it a shot if they could only figure out how to install their network cables. (I assume that's the reason why Nintendo's severs run like they're constantly on fire) Still, Nintendo gets to be a beneficiary in all this without having to lift a finger as another member of the 'impoverished' who are granted the table scraps that Playstation have been desperate to keep to themselves. 

I imagine for many aspiring politicians out there, sticking it to a company as big as Microsoft would have been something of a 'white whale' moment for them, which could be why this whole back and forth dragged on for so long. I mean why else would the good of the games industry suddenly matter when Microsoft are the one's in the hotseat, and yet not worth so much as a second glance when relative nobodies like Electronic Arts were busy peddling money sucking psychologically primed lootboxes at children with nothing but a stern talking to from Parliament. They literally brought ad space in a children's comic book for Fifa Lootboxes, and then tried to turn around and pretend it was an accidental miscommunication. You know, because everyone out there has accidentally brought freakin' adspace, designed a campaign and then run with that before realising they were only out for milk that morning- what an innocent mistake!

Still, as much as the slowly rising monopolistic gaming entity known as Microsoft gives me pause, I'm glad that the big M is building itself up as more of a competitor in the bout against Sony, because right now having the most powerful console on the market isn't really much of a boast when there's nothing unique taking advantage of all those loss-leading components. If an Activision partnership can bring us one step closer to that world, then I'll begrudgingly support it. Or at least I won't cry foul when Sony are burned in a deal that is no different then something they would ravenously pursue if situations were reversed. Not that Sony are even getting burned, Microsoft have been worlds more accommodating than their competitors would be with that kind of power. Maybe that less-than-obvious approach is what's making Sony so damned anxious.

How to fake mistakes and influence people.

 Is there something going around the 'greedy exec' watering hole?

Big surprise: The industry is back on their insanity again as the rough walls of this industry of ours appear to peeling off from around us- all the while we smile and try to pretend that the Summer Games Fest is the only thing of importance happening around us. (I just want to make it to the Bethesda/Microsoft showcase without another stupid industry scandal, can we manage that?) But with all this turmoil bubbling up around us, it's important that we don't become lost in the fervour of it all and lose sight of the simple things. Human fragility. The ability to forgive. And the fact that people make honest mistakes sometimes. Of course, it's that very human and understanding nature of man which companies so often exploit in their mastery of 'popularity mind games' which appears to have become all the rage in the modern day entertainment industry. Observe: two masters who recently got to work.

First we have Twitch, the number one video game streaming site on the Internet and the home of an executive board that seems to regularly flip out and stick a loaded gun to the platform's head forcing the user base to bum rush them in order to save themselves. And what was the bullet this time? Sponsorship deals. Very long and specific story short, Twitch are trying to make their platform profitable and that is becoming harder and harder the more people come to host on their services- their latest attempt was to try and throttle users ability to make off-site sponsorship deals without Twitch as an intermediary. Through a plethora of pointed community guideline updates, Twitch neatly outlawed a variety of methods that sponsorship seekers set up advertising communities with Twitch Streamers, all in a vain hope of forcing said streamers to seek sponsorship deals out through Twitch, thus allowing them to take a big cut of the earnt revenue. Delightfully devilish, Twitch-more!

Now, of course- this is really the kind of comically evil play you'd only usually attempt to pull in an industry over which you have a monopoly, and Twitch have been slowly losing that monopoly in recent years. Youtube, Kick, Rumble- everyone seems to be coming to take the market share away from Twitch and almost all of them offer better deals- Twitch only seems to be topdog these days because of a more solid infrastructure and legacy appeal. By making it impossible for enfranchised Streamers to make a decent living on their platform, Twitch basically just made a move to drive them away whilst simultaneously signalling to any company who offers sponsorships that theirs is a platform that is too restrictive to do business with. This was... just a really stupid business move all around. Or was it?

Because whilst Twitch can slap down the 'walk back' Tweet and talk about what a crazy unhinged mistake they made, eagle eyed observers saw very clearly how Twitch removed only the craziest elements of their changes and left the more innocuous and vague language untouched within their guidelines. Classic misdirection tactic here- make a massive over reach which riles up the industry with two steps towards your goal, pretend to be sorry and take one step back letting everyone think they have the victory, wait some time and do it again. Now Twitch have slightly more control over the rights of Sponsors and flaunt the right to bring down the ban hammer on anyone they feel threatened by or, most cynically, anyone who appears to be making a chunk of change that Twitch wishes they could get a cheeky swipe of. Textbook and elegant manipulation; we'll see how that works out for them.

But whereas Twitch is at the beginning of their scheme, let's shift gears to a man at the very end of his successful grift in which he managed to weasel out of an absolute gauntlet of mayhem. Bobby 'Working class hater' Kotick.  The man from Activision has survived an absolute whirlwind of chaos after his years of facilitating the worst practises within the company came out in explosive fashion. The way that workers were treated, women were harassed, and the way that Bobby himself allegedly threatened someone's life. Honestly a guy like that should probably not be on the board of any company as he himself agrees- although in the same breath he denied any validity in the accusations in a recent interview he conducted as something of a victory lap about the job he still inexplicably has.

And let me be absolutely clear; despite his grandstanding that "No CEO who had actually done the thing I'm claimed to have done would still be in my position"; (that's paraphrased) there have been real consequences of Bobby's image degradation. Not least of all a total breakdown of relations with their partners in China which led to the shutting down of Blizzard's WOW China severs and a vehement rejection of the Activision brand- all because of Bobby. The man was another pressure point in the Microsoft deal, but somehow managed to worm his way into keeping his job without sacrificing the buyout. Like all the worst people in history the man is an absolute cockroach, scurrying across the bombed-out ruins of everything around him.

 

Yet today I find myself at further odds with him then I've ever been before, you wanna know why? This comment: "-we did not have a systemic issue with harassment — ever,” he said in the interview. “But what we did have was a very aggressive labor movement working hard to try and destabilize the company.”. Yes, he's using the investigation that they paid off to be a puff piece as vindication to villainize and attack the company unions. And then he goes on to gab about how 'pro union' he is, because his mother was a teacher and that simple fact alone means he would never stamp on the necks of his company workers whilst using them as scapegoats. All he wants is for the union to "play by the rules". Or more appropriately, to kneel before the headsman's axe when he needs an easy out. 

You see, that is the temperature of modern business, lies and deception pump through the veins of all these sadistic CEO's and their psychopath-aspirant sycophant executives- which is what makes their kind an absolute plague on the world of art. And this style of business deviancy is only going to expand. Like a disease, a pathogen carried on the almighty dollar bill and swept on the rolling wind of growing commerce. That's the same reason why Konami killed off it's quality game arm to specialise in gambling and mobile money sinks, why Bethesda's Fallout 76 charges $100 a year for a decent inventory system, and why Sports games shudder at the very concept of 'new assets'. Best start believing in megacorp dystopias- you're living in one!

Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice' Review

Hesitation is defeat

The prophecy has spoken. FromSoftware released Elden Ring which means that I had to, given the curse of being a guy always one game behind the times, rock up to Sekiro at some point; the only Souls game within the franchise to take a unique fundamentally story centric approach to the formula of the Souls-like whilst still keeping the core gameplay loop we've come to love with this franchise. Coming into it, I was expecting to get more of an experience akin to Ninja Gaiden, and ultimately I do think the game was kind of a mass-up collaboration between several conceptuals to deliver a Souls game both very familiar yet still distinct from what we've come to know. And in terms of Souls games having the reputation of being some of the 'hardest games to complete'- Sekiro is sometimes considered the single hardest because of it's distinctions. I have some thoughts on that I'll touch on at the end.

The composite of a Souls-like game is becoming quite whittled down given the rise in similar style games recently, as such we can define the subgenre thusly: A game wherein death is tied to some sort of punishment mechanic, which is usually recoverable. Yeah, that's pretty much the most we can nail these style of games down to at this point. Although if we're to compare with the grandfather's of 'Dark Souls' and 'Demon Souls', Sekiro naturally has a lot more in common them than mere happenstance of a single shared idea. Sekiro borrows the limited healing items idea from Demon Souls, Bloodbourne and Dark Souls 2, but intermingles that with the more static 'improvable and refillable healing items' concept from Dark Souls 1 and 3. Sekiro also features a non-linear world that is defined by routes, although given the new and unique traversal methods of Sekiro, jumping, climbing and the grapple hook, you'll find the lines of those routes softer than they've been in any other Souls-like up until now. Also, boss design is one of the key-most pillars of design and still the vast highlight of the gameplay experience; although the players relationship with those fights is fundamentally altered, again, within the peculiarities that only Sekiro boasts.

To start, Sekiro is the first Souls like game to really introduce itself in formal terms, not just with an esoteric intro cinematic designed to lay out the basics of the world in as vague terms as possible (Thank you, Dark Souls franchise for setting that precedent). For Sekiro we instead have an entire prologue intro section presented to explicitly lay out the important figures of the world of Ashina, the stakes at play with the dangers for Sekiro and the motivation of protecting the Divine Heir. Of course this is standard for a typical narrative, but very atypical for FromSoftware's previous games like Dark Souls. Previously FromSoftware revelled in titles where the exploration of the player's very surroundings is at the heart of the narrative experience, even if that isn't always mechanically obvious. (Which is why a lot of people barrel through those games with no idea what the main plotline even was) But by heading on a more traditional path, Sekiro makes it's story much more accessible to the casual observer.

This approach extends to Sekiro's genre-unique but industry-traditional approach to adventure game action. You no longer play a custom created RPG pawn built to the fighting standards of your whims or a list of archetypes. There is no 'spending 5 hours re-specing your desiccated hero to use magic because The Nameless King just won't die' there is the relatively static character of the Wolf and later the player-dictated set of tools he picks up and uses in his journey. Of course, narratively that does mean the man, later crowned 'Sekiro', has some more immediately noticeable stakes in the unfolding events in and around Ashina- but don't mistake this for a character driven protagonist focused drama plot: at it's heart you're still playing a Souls game, just one with marginally clearly and laid out plot parameters, which some might like. Personally, I'm a fan of exploring with a fine-tooth comb through an intricately laid out procession of in-universe clues uncovering the reality of the explored area, but then Sekiro's approach to it's world and characters were designed with enough 'uniqueness' to draw my care and immersion anyway, I suppose.

Because everyone who plays Sekiro adopts the same shoes as the One-Armed-Wolf, that means every player is going to have to get intimately familiar with the new sword combat which is the spine of all combat in Sekiro. This is fortuitous given that this combat is perhaps one of the most masterfully designed that FromSoftware, or any sword-focused game for that matter, has ever come up with. The key to Sekiro swordplay is speed and relentlessness wherein "Hesitation is death", to quoth the great Lord Isshin: Glock Saint. When striking, the player and enemy are beholden to two bars, their health and posture. Health is pretty self explanatory with the only change-up being the inclusion of 'deathblows' which act as additional health bars (and switch-up points for Boss attack Stages in the later game) but 'Posture' is where the genius lies. Acting like Stamina, posture builds up whenever an attack is deflected and releases slowly when not attacking or quickly when the guard is dropped altogether. If the posture bar should ever fill entirely, either the player loses their guard entirely for several crucial seconds, or the enemy is rendered vulnerable to a 'deathblow' attack that instantly drains the current health bar no matter where it is currently at; so you can see the appeal to deplete posture bars.

As such, Sekiro is designed around the types of encounters where the player needs to be attacking the enemy constantly, meeting each attack with a counter instead of backing off, in order to pile up that posture bar and hit a deathblow. As even enemy deflections add to the posture meter, no landed attack feels wasted and the advantage needs to always be pressed in a tense dance of 'question' and 'response' speed striking. But the health bar is no silent partner to this dance. Just as one might imagine from real injuries, the amount of health that either fighter has left in their current bar is directly correlated to the speed at which posture regenerates, meaning that if you've pressed the advantage and managed to sneak in a few nicks and cuts here and there, you actually can back off for a bit without watching your posture-bar progress vanish entirely. Of course; the same will happen to you, so keep on top of that health bar!

However what makes Sekiro a Souls game isn't just it's combat. (In that regard Sekiro actually lacks a traditional stamina bar system, which is godsend for sprinting about as much as you want and whacking like a lunatic.) It's the death system, and as the title might imply; Sekiro has some... interesting ideas here. As I explained with the 'deathblow' mechanic, although Sekiro can't be one-hit killed by any attack specifically, he does technically own multiple health bars thanks to the 'die twice' mechanic. Everytime you die, the player has the option to expend a 'deathblow' counter on a revive so they can get back up, with half their health, in about a 30 second grace period. (Wait any longer and you die for good and have to respawn at an idol.) This really works out as more of a 'last gasp' mechanic more than anything else, because you can't really surprise this AI by getting back up and slashing them from behind, aggro lasts too long for that.

Also Deathblow counters vary from valuable to frivolous, the basic type of counter is refilled everytime you rest at a shrine, the secondary counter is only refilled after you've slain a crazy amount of enemies. And even then, after you die for the first time you need to unlock the right to use a second token by either killing an enemy or hitting a deathblow on a boss; making it not just three extra health bars you can call on to win any fight. I was slightly worried the 'DieTwice' mechanic would turn out to be an 'auto win' button like Nioh's ultimate states (in the early game) but of course FromSoftware are characteristically discerning with their design. Ultimately, these death counters allow the player to experiment with getting killed checking out some minibosses moveset whilst not robbing the actual life-or-death stakes of reviving for the second time at a crucial moment in a climatic boss fight. But what about if you actually do let yourself die for good? What are the consequences from here in order to fully fulfil the 'Souls-like' mandate?

Well there's actually a gameplay consequence and a narrative consequence this time around. As it turns out, fully dying and coming back has the potential to inflict NPCs with a 'Dragonrot' plague that renders them into fits of coughing and can actually pause some questlines. No one can actually die from this Dragonrot, however, so you don't need to fret about how many times Lady Butterfly is turning you into a pin cushion. Within gameplay, however, death is a bit more brutal. In Sekiro you can expect to lose half of all your money and XP perk point progress with every death, which is about as eye-watering as it sounds. There are ways around this, filling an XP bar grants a perk point which is essentially 'banked' and cannot be taken away, and you can buy money pouches and bags to 'store' your gold away in the event of death. But sooner or later you're going to stumble into a surprise fog gate arena against a boss you weren't ready for and thus end up losing something valuable. Unless the game's 'Unseen Aid' random percentage save chance procs; but don't worry about that: It never procs when you need it to. (30% rate, my ass...)

Ah, but we briefly touched on Perk points, did we not? Another new concept for the Souls-like team. Perk Points work in your typical RPG tree of skills only with many of the unlockable abilities being slot-able special abilities (Arts), some of which have some devastating punishment potential in combat. These slot alongside the 'Prosthetic arm' upgrade mechanic, more money and material based, which slots special 'shinobi tools' that Sekiro can deploy. A few of which, when used correctly, have the potential to totally trivialise the right fights. So there's your 'magic path' for those who say that Sekiro has no combat or gameplay options, which is what makes it so unrelentingly difficult. It absolutely does, you just need to pay more attention to the tools it gives you. Of course, there are consumables on top of that- and new to FromSoftware are mini bosses designed to be nearly invulnerable unless attacked whilst under the effect of  a rare consumable item. (Imagine Dark Souls 1 Phantoms, but as the bosses of their area.) This is perhaps the one design decision I think is actual bunk by FromSoftware and was regularly upset by. (At least make Divine Confetti drop more often if you're going to do that!)

Speaking of 'options' did I mention the game has stealth? It's not the greatest stealth system you've ever encountered, but it does permit for a single Deathblow from a stealth attack- even on bosses if you can get around them unseen! This opens up some unique approach concepts with some of the more difficult bosses, wherein you can zip around the battlefield before alerting the big boss, taking out their trash mobs, opening up the chance to start the fight with a major blow instantly eliminating one of the boss' health bars. Juzou the Drunkard is a great example of a mini-boss where you can take this approach, which can end up turning a painful slog into something akin to a puzzle stealth hybrid gameplay moment. Although these alternative routes are only possible in certain free-form locations- FromSoftware would never so much as consider giving you the chance to cheapshot one of their carefully crafted major bosses.

Which brings us around to the sparkling jewel of any Souls game; the boss battles. FromSoftware are largely considered the kings of boss fights and it's no idle crown that they bear, Sekiro's bosses feature some of the most interesting and creative designs that their studio have ever produced, and I think that is because of FromSoftware's approach to a largely set-in-stone protagonist. Unlike with other Souls games where FromSoftware gives you the mould to make a protagonist in whatever image you so choose, requiring the gameplay design team to create bosses that can theoretically be taken down by any playstyle with enough dedication and elbow grease- Sekiro's bosses are tailor-made to challenge the player's specific selection of abilities, opening up the team to focus on creatively stretching mechanics and pure unbridled spectacle. 

Battling Lady Butterfly in a burning temple which gradually catches more fire as the fight grows more intense is a sublime image, as is the dreamy cloud-top duel with a literal Chinese Dragon later on. But some of the most memorable fights can be those that don't even play out as you'd expect, such as the Horse mounted soldier who plays more like a classic Souls boss simply because of his sweeping attacks and movement patterns that just don't provide enough substantive windows of opportunity to wail on his posture bar. Or even the Armoured Knight who is impervious to all damage, which leaves you having to figure out how to overcome his challenge by paying attention to how your attacks actually do affect him. And if we're talking pure amazing set-pieces, does it get any more grand than the pale albino snake who stalks you throughout the game in several moments of 'cat and mouse' before you can finally get your own back?

Of course, there are some hang-ups in the boss department. For me, the repetition of some bosses really started to grate, specially the more challenging ones. The Guardian Ape makes for a spectacular, and frustrating, display during the first fight, but proceeding battles take place in less apt and cramped arenas. Even though he was a miniboss, the Shichimen Warrior fights were mostly utterly asinine in their placements, with the boss often being placed in odd location arenas where you're inevitably going to suffer from an attack made through a solid piece of environment. And the less said about the Headless the better. Screw the Headless. Still, then you get a breath-taking battle like the Demon of Hate and all the annoying points so seem to fade away and you're right back in the heat of an amazing Souls-style showdown. Being the David to a giant, burning, Goliath wondering how in the hell you're going to slingshot this one!

The world of Sekiro is itself another wonder of FromSoftware design, a Sengoku period fort set in the snowy hills that unfurls out into a lavish mountainous valley in one direction, a poisonous swamp in another (of course) and even the tops of the heavens nearer to the end. Of all the worlds we've seen From depict, Ashina has to be one of the least decrepit and dying, as rather than picking through the rotted corpse of a kingdom past it's glory you're traversing a fort teetering on the edge of an explosive collapse that you will be there to see. And of course, this world is populated with a mixture of period-themed humanoids sometimes with twisted and elongated proportions and straight fantastical creatures dotting the higher paths. Actually, I think Sekiro might have the most human swathe of enemies that the Souls franchise has ever seen up until now.

If there's one disappointment I have with the world, it's the severly underserved plot device of memory exploration. Once again we have a Souls game where one section is mired in a deeply unclear method of time travel or memory recovery (See Dark Souls III and II and the DLC for I) only this time I felt a bit cheated by the potential. My belief was that this was going to serve a neat way to explore the history of the various founders of Ashina, but as it turns out the entire section I witnessed was merely a one-off optional area purely for the benefit of Sekiro and his inexplicably spotty memory of the night where everything started going wrong. I understand you get to go back there under some very specific circumstances for the late game, but I just wish there was a little more done with that plot device.

Other than that I found the narrative of Sekiro surprising conventional and straight-forward for a FromSoftware game, albeit peppered with curious elements of world building here and there, and not all of it I can say I properly absorbed. I figured out some of the secrets hidden in backstories, but beyond that some of the more obvious story elements, such as who the Ministry even are, eluded me. The only point at which the game did a typical Miyazaki and left me feeling utterly bewildered was the final encounter. Firstly chucking a brand new McGuffin in the final encounter is a bit cheap; (I know it was referenced in one throw-away side document, but for the significance it played in the ending, that final 'tool' could have done with a bit more explanation) and what is done with that McGuffin is... I'll be honest I think it makes no sense whatsoever. The very reason for the final boss (of the normal ending) being the final boss makes no sense to me. I've read countless superstitions and fan theories, but the base game didn't do it's job in justifying that story move, which is kind of a strange note to end your narrative on if you ask me.

Finally, and though it's not relevant to understand for this review so much, I want to talk about the final boss. (Of every route apart from the bad ending. Because this game actually features consequential ending selection, surprise surprise!) I cannot, in good conscience, sanction a finale in which you are forced to fight a preliminary boss before the final boss every time you die. I understand the intention of reinforcing mastery, but dammit I need to learn move patterns. Move patterns make up the entire rhythm of a Souls game, especially for Sekiro; but as if to attack that specific subset of players Miyasaki decided "No- give them a pre-boss to trip them up." That final encounter wouldn't have been nearly as frustrating if I was focusing on the actual final villain.

Summary

Sekiro is considered the hardest Souls game for a few reasons, the manner in which it side-steps a lot of the core rules and movement lessons taught by the franchise and the fact that you can't just go off and grind to 'out level' the problem. There's one route to increased strength, and it's the critical path. But I actually find that tailor built balance to be the reinforcement I needed to stick out any challenge in the game. I was never left feeling totally helpless, because I knew I was supposed to be able to beat whatever foe I had wherever I was. Which of course meant I had to put my trust in the designing talents over at FromSoftware; but if one video game company has earnt the benefit of the doubt, it's them. And even when the game was at it's most tough, the fun of throwing about that robust and masterful combat system made even the most bitter failures fun.

In it's length Sekiro seems to expend every clever idea you could picture with the toolset available, leaving no ability under served or untested as you topple one creative obstacle after another. I think the world was very solid in it's Japanese fantasy whilst remaining staunchly grounded in that dour world-at-the-precipice style that Miyazaki loves, and the story which spurs us through that world is entirely serviceable. And after finishing the game, once again, I was left breathless in the glory of a game which equals up to another firm masterpiece under the belt of the FromSoftware team. In fact, I would consider this perhaps one of the most accessible FromSoftware games for it's relative sub-genre peculiarities, which makes it an easy recommend even for people just curious about Souls-likes trying to get into the spirit of the genre. It won't be an easy play, but it won't leave you feeling isolated or lost either. Which means that I'm going to come around to a pretty solid A+ Grade on my arbitrary grading system, brought just short of a legendary rank by my own personal hold ups with certain decisions made. Although I wouldn't at all be surprised if others consider it their best in the franchise, because as a robust game Sekiro really is just that good. Honestly, I came away slightly bummed out there was never any post-launch-DLC; guess I've got to wait for another 10 years until FromSoftware come back around to sequel this spectacular game.

Another wanting AAA launch.

 Chuck it on the pile.

There's a generally accepted law of production that on a very basic level, the more resources you dedicate towards a project directly collates with the end result of that project in a positive manner. Which is a awfully garbled way to say, put more money behind something and it should turn out better. Emphasis on should, because anyone who has ever actually worked in a team on literally anything knows that having the shiniest tools on hand doesn't count for jack squat if your teammates are speaking another language to one another and don't even know what the project to begin with even is. Still, there is something especially strange about the way that video games are trending towards becoming more and more often broken and buggy in their launches, whilst at the same time the development teams behind them are getting bigger, the budget spent on them is getting larger, and the clowns selling them are making the selling price steeper. It's as though the overall quality of everything in trending, ever so subtly, downwards and every success story good release is a exception to an increasingly ubiquitous set of rules.

The culprit in question this time is, shock of shocks; another bloody remake! Although to be entirely fair, the Call of Duty Remakes are pretty much brand new games stretched over the rough makeup of the old Modern Warfare games from back in the day in terms of general premise and story. The real meat of the product is all new, so this isn't a "remake = lazy" story. (If anything, this game is representative that COD developers have truly run all the way out of ideas.) Actually, it's not even the single player of the game which is even being bought into question because, increadibly, COD is still delivering middle-of-the-road but flashy-action campaigns, just as they been doing since the year dot. (Imagine still putting campaigns in your game so they can appeal to everyone? EA laughs at such frivolity.) It's the part of the package which is, for the majority of the player base, the only sector that matters; the Multiplayer.

Coming at this from the point of view of someone who hasn't played COD since the original Modern Warfare... on the Wii... makes this whole wave of disillusionment totally foreign to me, so I have to rely on the accounts of others. What we're seeing here is a lack of features that previous CODs bought such as Barracks, Prestige Challenges, Medals, unlock notifications, Hardcore mode, Ranked play and... wait, they don't have Leaderboards? What in the... See at this point you know this isn't just a case of oversights or a shift in direction that removed features without conveying that to the expectant audience. These are embarrassing omissions. My air for forgiveness would say that the team were rushed to make a high quality product and couldn't quite meet the deadline to do everything (...including Leaderboards) but my cynical mind tells me that they probably just saw the absolute disaster that was Battlefield 2042 and said "Wow, if they can get away with a 50% finished game, we can totally get away with an 80% finished one!"

But perhaps the most frustrating omission, given the age we live in, in the lack of core matchmaking customisation necessary to allow people to play the game they want to. There's no way to opt out of crossplay match-making; a system which is fine for casual play, but for anyone who is trying to put on an actual performance there's no real room for a system that allows for imbalanced match-ups like crossplay. You want to put a joystick user up against a key board and mouse user? That's just irresponsible. And sure, apparently MW2 managed to launch without a ranked mode, some impossible-how, but if 'crossplay toggling' is a feature the team are holding off for until ranked arrive; then I have to say that I simply don't see the value in not just flipping the switch to enable it now. And before you say "Well it's not so easy as flipping a switch"- you actually can disable crossplay on the Sony version of MW2. The PC and Xbox versions are the only ones doomed to unsolicited match-ups.

All of this is despite the fact that this is the first COD game in years wherein Activision hasn't been forced to scramble together some singular game mode exclusively for the Sony console users because of their exclusivity deal. They didn't even slap one together for Xbox. One has to wonder exactly why it is that the team couldn't manage to wrangle up a game to the standard of their last when they've managed to not only pull off exactly that but build upon it for the last several years. Perhaps this is due to the sudden Microsoft acquisition shaking up the daily proceedings enough to impeded the development process, but I'm literally just writing excuses for them now and even then that doesn't track for why the game couldn't have been pushed back until it wasn't a stain on their quality standard performance.

Of course, this has hardly been a unique situation in recent years when it comes to big game launches. Titles have launched incomplete, barren or buggy and often times it's a coin toss whether the developer can be bothered to stick around long enough to get the final product up to snuff. 343 faced the wrath of their audience for three launches that missed standards in various ways and countless broken promises over the length of ten years. That is a very extreme example of course, but it's not exactly becoming the rare exception of the industry these days either. And to be clear I'm not talking about a game that launches to a standard that isn't as good as the fans expected, such as Gotham Knights or Saints Row; I mean the sorts of games that lack the basic standards that any reasonable team would be expected to deliver. They knew this was going to leave people upset and they went ahead anyway.

At the very least we can understand that the COD team aren't typically the type of devs to cut and run when things become difficult. They'll work on the game and patch the leaky ship they built, but to sell a game at full price during a time when it seemingly isn't finished yet just feels a little dishonest, quite frankly. As though they're cashing in on their pre-ordained 'optimal release window' rather than adjusting to ensure the needs of the client are met. Typically, in a customer satisfaction dependent industry like entertainment, the customer's wants are tantamount; but then I guess Call of Duty has crossed the line into one of those franchises that is "Too big to fail". What is Activision going to do in the face of any actual significant backlash? Drop Infinity Ward? Not in a thousand years.

I just find it amazing how we, as a community, get ourselves regularly gaslit by the big industry heads who chastise us for how demanding we are and how little we really pay for their hard-crafted experiences, only for the product out the box to be a hollow shell gutted of the basics and spoon-fed the difference with endless microtransactions or post support development cycles. It really makes being a follower of the industry feel like managing an abusive relationship you don't remember slipping into, where somehow we're always the bad guy for coughing up our end of deals that always fall through. I'm pretty sure there's supposed to be consumer laws to defend against stuff like this, but no one ever bothered update them in the past fifty years so they're about as useless as they sound. Can't wait for the next AAA game to disappoint at launch and leave us with fifty heartfelt promises. 

COD and plagiarism

 They can't keep getting away with it!

It's funny that COD should in the centre of so many competing crosshairs as big console manufactures argue about whether or not the game is fundamental to competition across the FPS market. It's funny because whatever way you look at it, this conversation is placing COD at the top of a very influential pedestal where almost everyone can agree it is a model to aspire to for continuing success. So all eyes are constantly on them when they have a month like the one they're living through. You know, the sort of month where you get continuously pulled up for plagiarism again and again to the point where you look like hack amateurs with absolutely no quality control department whatsoever; meanwhile giants are wrestling over who gets to stick you on their shelf to be their golden trophy. That's what you get for having idols and role models, I guess.

To be clear, accusations of art theft are a pretty hefty chunk of mud to sling around and are so hard to prove in most cases, almost as much as it is to find. With so many artists in every field, more than at any other point in history by several orders of magnitude, content is being developed incessantly and constantly, everywhere that you look, so if someone wants to steal a little idea concept from some small corner of the internet, who the heck is going to know? To be fair, the COD design artists are probably look at this as 'taking inspiration' from the work they see everyday; which there is nothing wrong with as long as you put enough of your own special juice in it to transform the final product. This month has presented an Activision that were very lax on the whole 'changing up the homework in the assignment' part of the equation.

It started with a posted advert for an upcoming COD Vanguard skin, the worst performing COD game in a very hot minute, in which one of the coming skins had a very eye-caching and interesting design to it. It was a heavy winter suit with the head of a Samoyed dog thrown over the player's usual boring human head; making the player approximately 15% all around better. Honestly it was a striking design that would have been really cool if it wasn't a paid cosmetic... oh, and bastardized from a random artist on the web! An Artist called 'saillin' took credit for the design and compared the COD dog with his own military canine design in some side-by-side comparisons. The concept itself was already pretty novel enough to inspire a raised eye-brow or two by those already in the know, but after that comparison; with how closely the military gear the dog is wearing matches up with what COD were planning: there really is no question, so shenanigans were taken here.

To their credit Activision did move to remove marketing materials featuring that dog and later announced that particular skin would be scrapped (Instead of, I don't know, maybe just paying the original artist to use their cool design. That would have worked even better in my opinion.) And to take away that small credit, they had to be mocked and ridiculed in order to do so. Had no one really made a fuss about this and the situation still be bought to Activision's attention; they would have helpfully ignored it so that they could continue their money raking unabashed; because that's just the kind of company that the COD creators are. Although, I wonder how this backlash might shake the structure of their content development departments going forward considering that, as I mentioned, this was not the only significant case of plagiarism that has been bought up this month.

 

Yet another upcoming skin for Warzone and Vangaurd featuring future-tec glowing pieces, has ended up drawing comparisons to a truly vapid upcoming game, leading myself to wonder if the COD plagiarists have literally no shame. Because at some point you have to grow some standards, and I'd feel that would come at some point before ripping of designs from the Dr Disrespect's Crypto FPS 'game' he's trying to tote up: Dreadrop. Although to be fair, there is a bit more nuance to this one. Not least of all because the aggrieved party is actually an ex Infinity Ward manager. He has taken it 'on the chin' by joking that Activision should name the skin after him (Ha Ha- they're never going to do that.) but even then I have to throw up a little bit of doubt to how much this one quite constitutes plagiarism. 

Oh the designs look similar alright! Damningly so, in fact. But COD's Malware Ultra Skin is just a guy in neon blue techy-armour with a hood on; it's not exactly the most inspired armour design ever invented. Of course not, they're being compared with freakin' Deadrop; a game dripping with unoriginality, this dispute really just raises concerns about the trite thematic elements fuelling both design processes. If it hadn't been for the more obvious dog-skin rip-off, people would probably be making more of a fuss about the big design variations, such as the skull face and glowing exo-skeleton design elements of the COD game versus Deadrop's decidedly more boring hexagonal urban camo design. Both skins do use pretty much the exact same colours, however; which doesn't help Activision's case at all. 

And then people just entered 'Twitter cancellation mode' where they comb through your entire history looking for a smoking gun to hang you with. They found it in the prospective logo for a COD mobile game that doesn't even have a title yet; it's just known as 'Project Aurora'. Well Aurora recently got a new slick logo featuring a sharp and spikey stylized 'A' at a slight slant which certainly looked cool- probably because it was allegedly ripped from Amuro Ray's personal emblemage on his RX-93 v Gundam from 'Mobile Suit Gundam: Char's Counterattack'. (Thank you, Animenewsnetwork, for being so complete in their coverage of this story.) Again, one could argue this as a coincidence since the logo is quite literally just a stylised A; but it just doesn't make for a very good look, does it? 'Confirmation Bias' is turning into 'Confirmation Prejudice' at this point.

All of which goes to paint COD, one of the biggest franchises in the world, as a lazy corner cutter who cares nothing for the sanctity of art. Although to be fair there is a perfectly rational explanation for a lot of this; pressure piled on by time constraints as a result of failure. Remember, 'Vanguard' pooped the bed as far as COD games go, shipping less units than the franchise has suffered in about ten years. That reflects badly on the team who are then flipped into a rush to hurry out content that might win people over, rushed employees start ignoring due diligence or just ripping off ideas full kettle in order to keep their jobs, and the potential media backlash for any of these screw ups is so unlikely because no one ever pays attention to this stuff. Until the day that they did, and now their bad position has probably become much worse as their indolence has been characterised as incompetence. Let this be an example of the snowball effect of big company run development studios where stopping to take stock is a crime punishable by redundancy. 

Company's don't care about players, 2022 edition

And everyone claps

Your favourite game company doesn't care about you. That seems like a fairly sensible and acceptable statement to make by most people's standards, of course they don't care about us- they have themselves to worry about. This is a silent and selfish world, everyone's out for themselves, it would honestly be anomalous if a development company suddenly started to care about the well being of their audience just because we squeezed out money for them. But what if I told you that for some developers it goes a step beyond that? They harbour not just apathy, but disgust. Genuine and acute disliking; all for those they claim to be creating entertainment for. And that might seem like a stretch and perhaps a somewhat unfair extrapolation, but the revelations of early 2022 certainly do paint that exact picture nice and clearly for us all.

There have been several iterations of brand new schemes and meddlings that various gaming companies have lauded in the past few weeks, few of which truly push forward our lovely little medium of gaming in any way that will improve, you know; the games. Instead, we're looking at new ways we can pump up the coffers of our favourite development giant in the hopes that- gee I don't know, maybe that trickle-down economics will finally kick-in after all this time? One of the most embarrassing of which has been the whole 'live service model' which has bitten companies in the ass so many times, but still they insist it's the future. Releasing a bad game and telling us it's good but give them 10 years to make it good is wearing a little thin, but don't just my opinion for it. Lets look at Babylon's Fall. That's a game which looked pretty bad, even with big names like Square Enix in the producer's chair and Platinum Games suffering the developer's whip. But worry not for how it looks, because it is a live service! Everything is subject to be improved, the beginning is not the destination, yadda yadda yadda... How did that work out for them? Well the game is currently looking at a player peak on Steam of just shy of 1,200 players. And a average of around 300 at this current moment. Hmm... okay but what about the free demo they put out? Average of 30 players... Yikes, there really is no spinning that one, huh? I guess players want good games. Weird.

But that's just one scheme. Recently I've noticed an influx in subscription mania setting in as game companies get all hot and bothered about the prospect of shackling us all to unending repeating payments. Seems fair enough. The only thing being that they can't really figure out the point at which they make the subscriptions worthwhile. You know, something I'd actually want to dish out some coins for. Take Rockstar: (I wish someone would...) they want us to pay for a subscription to GTA Online. Yes, the very same GTA Online which as been around since 2014. Now it has a special plus subscription with exclusive apartments and cars and- I'm sorry did we all do something wrong to you, Rockstar? Did we all collective kick out your windows in a past life and this is your way of 'getting back' at the world? It's just that, as far as I can recall, GTA Online makes hundreds of millions each and every year. It's paying itself off by the truckload. Yet they need a new revenue stream out of it? Why? How does an 'aura of exclusivity' provide value to your favourite cash cow? Needless to say this was mocked to the high heavens. And even more needless to say it'll go through anyway. Because Rockstar doesn't care what you think, because the players don't matter. 

Oh and what's this? Call of Duty is apparently flirting with a subscription model in the near future and just what are we even doing anymore? Why have our development studios dedicated their lives and souls to whittling down the product but upping the cost on consumers? Haven't they already decided to try and ramp up the base purchase price by £10 this generation? Isn't that enough screwing about? How about blaming this all on stagnant inflation, whilst simultaneously dusting off their 100 dollar special edition versions and asking why we look so insulted? So say that COD gets a subscription service; what does that offer? A recurrent COD experience? We've already got that, it's called Warzone. Or is this going to be Warzone 2? Or maybe just exclusive bonuses for Warzone? What about the core package on offer has been improved in order to justify a recurrent price over a flat buy in. And if the answer is 'nothing', then why are we allowing this to happen?

Of course, I've just been dancing around the true Dark Horse of this whole affair. The villainous plague infesting the minds of overwise sane business men across all industries, the dreaded letters: NFT. I know that the Ubisoft debacle was technically last year, but some of their responses were made this year and I just can't forget about them so easily. Making NFT helmets in Breakpoint, an already dying game, in order to ensure it would become toxic to any prospective newcomers? Paying bonuses in NFTS to your employees? Committing to an NFT powered future, despite the fact that only a fraction of a percentage of cryptocurrency users even partake in the scam-ridden practice? Talk about a neon self-waving red flag and several halves. It's like a litmus test to see which developers still have normal pupils in their heads and which have had their sights surgically replaced with comical dollar signs; because no rational, clear seeing business focused individual could look at the numbers around NFT and see that as the incoming wave of the future.

And nowadays it doesn't even have to be an established video game giant who slides down this path. The grift is so ubiquitous with the industry that people are approaching games industry careers with it in mind. Just take Dr Disrespect's idea which has itself a hair brained, NFT fuelled scheme to try and suck money out of potential fans before the game is even made under some guise that 'everyone is an investor'. And absolutely not just a way for Dr D to abscond with funds from people too poor and dumb to successfully sue him. Forget that gaffe of accidentally nicking one of Cyberpunk 2077's screenshots; the very concept of his company is a worse plague on the industry. He's asking from funding in order to hire the development talent! How can you start a game studio that doesn't even have the development staff until after it gets money from it's customers? Revolutionary? Perhaps. The most suspicious framework for a development studio ever? Absolutely.  

So then with all these backhanded scowls shooting back and forth across the industry, one must ask; what does it take for a company to actually appear to value it's fans in todays age? Is there such thing as a games company that doesn't take advantage of their audience? Well I'd argue there are some, but they're becoming fewer. We just need a company who is communicative about changes which the public need to know about, who focus on making a game worthy of the monetisation strategies they intend to implement first, before putting the game out. A company that respects their audience's time, and who isn't asking them to commit 12 hours a day for several concerted weeks in order to get the most out of the game. Oh, and a company that doesn't try to sell their entire fanbase down a fad speculative investment scheme would be kind of nice. I'd certainly like that last one!

In conclusion, the video game industry is fraught with deciding what it even wants to be to the people it caters too nowadays. The entire medium has rocketed forward in the past forty years, moulding and shifting its core structure to rocket in line with traditional media and now it's slipping past itself into something unrecognisable. There are still people making great games for reasonable asking prices and solid returns; but they're starting to feel like the fringe old school against a wave of anti-consumerist bile. Up until now it's been one or two schemes that the big boys in the industry have rallied behind, pushing the big one forward whilst sneaking the smaller one into games at the same time so that the big one draws all the ire. But now the approach is scattergun and I don't know where all this is heading. All I can say is that gaming looks to a potentially drastic landscape in three years time. 

Microsoft captured an Activision!

 It's detail were added to it's Pokedex

Okay so I'm going to take a little break from my regularly scheduled blog series to ask the obvious question I think we're all wondering: What the hell just happened? I mean seriously; Activision just folded it's cards under Microsoft for a little shy of $70 billion? (Well actually it's quite a lot shy, $1.3 billion shy to be exact, but you get what I mean.) What does this mean, how does this shape the gameplan of this industry and how many consolidations are going to go through before we start ringing the 'monopoly' alarm? I mean it's always been clear that Microsoft has the kind of 'buy your house just to burn it down' kind of money, but they've never exercised it in the video game landscape like this before. It's as though someone just diverted the annual budget meant for 2022's pharmaceutical research and funnelled it into this buy. Oh wait, I just thought of something- if this has been bubbling up in the background for all this time then how does that frame the recent troubles Activision is going through? There's just so many questions to go over and nowhere near enough answers to stop us chewing our fingers to nubs in anticipation; so let's get started with some educated speculation just as we are so eager to do on this funny little thing we call the Internet.

Firstly, what does this mean for the landscape? Well I think it's pretty clear that lines are being drawn in the sand opposite Sony for these 'console wars' that everyone is always going on about. Previously it's always seemed like Sony has had the upperhand whilst Microsoft has been slowly building up it's own bevy of exclusives, but this is certainly a big move to tip the balance. Before Sony only just conceded and started allowing it's exclusives on the PC, (albeit, one at a time) so I no longer really have a horse in this race; but it's still fascinating to watch how these companies seem to be bringing in studios of differing specialties not so much to compete but to coincide with their bitter competition. Sony covets the great AAA single player developers, whilst Activision is an online-centric publisher through and through, kind of making it seem like Xbox is saying "We've got competitive multiplayer all to our selves; you can have the high quality singleplayer award winners." As though that's a balance which is going to hold.

Lord can imagine the utter shock that all those Call of Duty fans are going to be in when they roll up later this year to the Modern Warfare 2 launch (or re-launch, depending on how you look at it) eager to get that new release on their PS5 only to be slapped across the face with a cold fish. More and more it's becoming far too complicated to be a console gamer anymore, with these petty politics and exclusivity lines ramping up the inconvenience for everyone. And yeah, maybe Microsoft will allow the next couple of Call of Duty's to be cross platform, considering PS5 development is probably already started on them and the contracts have been written up, but you have to be crazy if you think Xbox is going to foot the bill for a big-selling Playstation game forever. That's a rug destined to be pulled and the chaos it will cause once it does is going to be amusing, if nothing else.

As for whether or not this brings Microsoft dangerously close to a gaming monopoly; I think we're certainly getting there. With Obsidian, Bethesda and Activision now dancing to the beat of Microsoft's drum, it feels like we're only a couple of years away from the Ubisoft acquisition, maybe Square Enix, or heck, why not Nintendo themselves seeing as how this asking price crosses their entire evaluation- it seems the only companies out of their reach are the huge mobile developers now. The gaming world shrank considerably with this news and I'm starting to wonder if it's even possible for a AAA studio not to be swallowed up by the big two in the future. And is this even going to healthy in the long run? How are all of these companies being managed under Microsoft's umbrella going to thrive when having to fight for attention and support against now giants subsidiaries also in the stable? Somehow, someway; this feels like a ticking time bomb of a business practice.

But moving away from the bigger picture for a moment; what does this mean for Activision and everything currently under them? I wonder if Battle.net, quite the annoying extra little launcher (although one with a lot of history to it) will become redundant now that Microsoft is in the picture? Or at the very least those Battle.net games not yet on the Microsoft store might see their impending ports soon. Microsoft could see it's stores and severs met with such profitable and promising franchises like Star Craft, Warcraft, Diablo and Overwa- okay, I can't say that last one with a straight face. We all know that Overwatch in 2022 exists purely as fuel for talented 3D modellers to debase over on Rule 34. That series is so dead that the upcoming Overwatch E-sports season is going to be played on an unfinished build of Overwatch 2, just to try and generate some remote interest from those who've forgotten the series completely. But sure... if Microsoft wants they can make Master Chief stickers for that game. (I can't wait.)

There's also the elephant dangling in the room here; and that's how Bobby Kotick and his whole scandal fits into this? Suddenly that ominous Phil Spencer email about 'evaluating their relationship with Activision' rings with a lot more power, even if it was sent internally. (No one expects internal emails not to get leaked nowadays anyway; it still feels like a polite threat.) If Bobby's mismanagement alone really did put $68 billion in potential jeopardy, it's an absolute wonder how the guy wasn't forcibly ejected from the company through cinderblock out the window! I'm serious; that's the sort of money that Shareholders start hiring actual hitmen over, how the heck is that guy still in the fold? And what does it mean for Microsoft's credibility that they went ahead and shook hands with Activision even with Bobby's stink still on it? I mean sure, Xbox are probably going to immediately push him out on his ass, but it just seems like a strange order of events.

What about something that won't change? How about the ingrained money hungry leeching hooks shoved into every orifice of this franchise to bite out at anyone curious enough to poke a limb in? Real industry experts claim that before every Activision game had to be a guaranteed billion dollar generator, which is what limited small scale innovation in the games they put out; they seem to think that now is going to change under Xbox and perhaps they are right, although I suspect it will be in a minute manner. Maybe Activision will publish an indie here and there for the free publicity, but I don't think for a second that Activision are going to suddenly tone down their pan-handling just because they have a big studio keeping them afloat. Guess what: Activision weren't exactly paupers before their $70 billion cash injection; how do you possibly think their way of nickel and diming (successfully) is going to shift in this new reality? Because I suspect the absolute bare minimum. 

Of course, all this is still in the announcement phase and theoretically anything can happen before the papers get signed. You know, if you happen to have a spare $69 billion lying around to come snipe this deal. (I actually don't know how such a deal would go down or if that's even possible; but man would it be funny if Elon Musk decided he wanted to go into game-making suddenly!) But even in the 'best case' scenario where everything goes through, Activision immediately starts welcoming smaller internal projects and Microsoft- i dunno- vows never to abuse their bubbling monopoly or something; Bobby Kotick is still looking at a comfortable ride out of his own office window thanks to the Golden parachute worth 293 million that he's got tucked away. Meaning that there is a point where you are so much of an arse that you can no longer experience failure in anyway. Karmic justice is a joke, free will is a myth; we're all pawns, controlled by something greater. Memes. The DNA of the soul.