Reviewers and Marketing

An unholy union.

We all have that one IGN opinion, don't we? Our exasperated reaction to what has to be one of the largest, yet most clowned on, official gaming publications in the entire industry. And the world, for that matter. IGN has one of the biggest chunks of online gaming presence, they're first fiddle to just about every single premiere on the market, they cover TV shows and movies at the same time, and they're perhaps one of the only stable career choices a gaming journalist can hope to make. But games journalists are already a questionable breed of people, now aren't they? For their debateable relevance and job performance standards, as well as their seemingly obvious lack of passion for their chosen vocation which always seems to bleed out in bitter and resentful articles that seem to drunkenly lash out in every direction without rhythm or reason. So what happens when you bring a whole collective of journalists together into one connected group? Pandemonium.

But IGN is much bigger than it's reviewing arm; heck it's an entire media empire at this point! Chock full of reaction-opinion content, watch along parties for all major gaming events, and press coverage out the wazoo; ensuring they can buff up their own viewership by feeding off the marketing campaigns of all other games. And I mean all other; they don't seem to care who gives them money, as long as they bring the potential for an audience along with them. I don't quite know what kind of parasite this makes IGN, but not a particularly fun one to follow. I bet most games industry people watch IGN these days without being fans, because that's just what you are supposed to do in order to keep abreast with the industry moves. IGN are the one's who made it this way, and they lorde it out on top of their pack for a reason.

Of course, IGN are by no means the only such publication; their example has spawned a cadre of identical eye-brow raising 'experts' who formulate their actionable opinions on the products they review by merit of wavy talents. It's not as if anyone is saying you need to be a gaming expert in order to pen a review, but perhaps getting people who actually like games would be a decent start- but alas we are doomed to suffer a reality where the industry is beset by absolute heels from every turn. Imagine if all movie critics absolutely could not stand the theatre, or watching long-form media- it's that level of insanity over here in gaming and we see this ugly truth reflected out of the dull empty-hearted articles pouring out of mainstream outlets with disappointment after disappointment.

Who remembers the Cuphead debacle from Gamesbeat? The situation in which an early player of the game's tutorial found themselves utterly incapable of pushing through the tutorial level of the game because it required them to jump atop a platform. Now to be absolutely fair to Gamesbeat, they had good humour about this. The player in question was no fan of platformers, they kind of set him up to fail by throwing it at him in the first place, and the video was uploaded as a kind of group shamefest for everyone to laugh along with. I hope the player was laughing as well. But I'm afraid to say that even though this particular video was made with the joke to mind, the perception it reinforces about the competency of video game reviewers is no illusion.

I mean, Ploygon's legendarily embarrassing footage of a player attempting DOOM's intro so pathetically it seems they've never even touched a First Person Shooter before is spectacle enough. The footage is bad, with the player standing still and getting mauled, seemingly unable to aim and move at the same time, and missing point-blank shots it should be honestly impossible to screw up on. And there really isn't a punch line to this one. This was footage that Ploygon shot and for some reason didn't immediately delete upon review; this one made it out to the public. And the message it sent: Yeah, our reviewers aren't really hobbyists for the games that they play... but, oh well- right? It certainly painted an aura of mistrust next time around when DOOM Eternal started getting critics grumbling about it's alleged difficulty.

And whilst we're doing the round trip, why not land at Gamespot's door for a spell? That's right, you didn't think I'd miss an opportunity to talk about the Miles Morales review, did you? A classic review, full of vigor, wherein the reviewer seems to struggle to come up with things to say about a game which was essentially just a bloated out DLC pack for the original Spiderman. (Not to knock the quality of Miles Morales, but we should call a spade a spade when we see it.) During which we got gifted the gloriously bizarre sentence "The way he leaps off of buildings and flips backwards to face the camera is full of the exaggerated swagger of a black teen, I get goosebumps everytime I see it." Which is just an objectively insane sentiment. That Gamespot thought an adequate defence for that statement was to go "Actually- the guy who wrote that review was black!"- is laughable.

Which brings me around to the latest kerfuffle; IGN's contribution to the shaky train that is the Redfall marketing. The game hasn't had a great go of it's reveals, with battles with the public over apt comparisons to the general vibe that this game doesn't feel as fresh and different as some of Arkane's other outings. Perhaps they thought giving people the chance to play the game and get that footage out would waive some concerns, and for some of the smaller creators the output of gameplay was soothing. The game does look pretty fun. But for the biggest of the outlets, IGN... woah, those guys are experts at not being experts. The gameplay is painful, just slightly better than the DOOM footage in that I believe this guy has played First Person Shooters before- but he just doesn't enjoy them in the slightest.

For a marketing video to score badly with the public is already a big kick to the ego, but for the reason of that disdain to not be the game itself but the people playing it... well, that's certainly raising questions about the worth of lukewarm platforms like IGN when it comes to supporting the game industry they leech off to survive. Compare that with grass-routes creators, like the 2.2 million viewed video of the ID Software team meeting up with huge DOOM fan Markiplier and having him rock out the game at it's highest difficulty setting whilst talking about how important the game was to him growing up- that's the kind of stuff that turns heads. Yeah, I didn't intend to make another blog basically saying "Trad media sucks" but here we are... guess it's a sentiment that writes itself, huh?

Easy modes for Hard Games

The stick and the carrot, or the carrotstick?

Over the years a certain debate has begun to pick up steam when talking about games, and it's whether or not every single game should feature some sort of difficulty scale with an 'easy mode' in the pursuit of being accessible. And no, this conversation isn't all going back to Game Journalists making demands about how all games need to be catered towards making their jobs easier, (although there are some instance where that might be true) but more from a fraction of the gaming public who feel ostracized from certain games simply because they can't cross the threshold of skill required to be involved. But then what is the solution? Pressure developers into creating easier modes for their games despite themselves? And should they even have to? I thought it might be fun to look at this issue from both sides and see where I fall on it. So that's what I did.

Hard Games Should have easy modes. 

The biggest draw of gaming and the gaming medium is it's propensity to entertain, and the biggest barrier in the way of that is accessibility. Whether we take that in terms of hardware accessibility, from scarcity or expense, software accessibility, from lack of preservation, or just natural accessibility. These are the  chasms that we have to bridge over on our journey to bring entertainment to as many as possible. Sometimes this means making special provisions for the colour-blind, the visually impaired, the audibly impaired and so on and so forth. In the instance of the matter at hand; that means adapting the game to be playable by everyone of any level of skill, so that potential fans aren't turned off from a game they might love due to lacking the natural reflexes of another fan. Difficulty modes and adaptive gameplay make for experiences that all can enjoy and aren't exactly exclusive features to only casual games. Take Resident Evil 4 for instance, a decently tough and intense game at it's highlights, that's a game wherein resources will become more plentiful the more you struggle with the journey, letting people experience more of the content. Or how about X-Com Enemy Unknown, one of the most challenging tactical campaigns in gaming, they have difficulty modes all the way to the point where you can make several mistakes and still make a good shot of winning.

In particular this conversation relates to Dark Souls and the way in which it's reputation as a difficult game drives some more casual players away from it in the knowledge that there is no path catered for them. If they don't have the time commitment or don't want to take on that stress, they'll be barred from enjoying a franchise that many others consider to be one of the best ever made. By asking for an easy mode, it's not as though people are asking to be let off easy, they just want to feel as though they're still having fun when playing games and living the fantasy they come to the gaming world for. Why can't there be an easier mode wherein enemies don't hit as hard as they would, or the player naturally has more health, or the number of in-game enemies is reduced, or some combination of the three? What could possibly be the harm in letting more people play your game?

In my personal experience, I've never been especially great at tactical games, particularly those that require you to take control of an entire army such as 'Empire at War' and 'Divinity Dragon Commander'. I just don't have it in me to remember every single unit weakness and pair off team to team across a huge battlefield, so I end up resorting to overwhelming force like a coward. That being said, it's the grace of games like those, in offering easier difficulty modes where AI isn't quite as aggressive as in other modes, that I'm allowed to play these games anyway and really understand their unique allure. Without easy difficulty modes, I'd never have enjoyed Stellaris or Civilisation in the way that I have, and isn't it a crime for two incredibly formed series' like that to be cut off from potential fans? I certainly don't feel like I've experienced some lesser version of either of these games and putting the power of making the game as difficult as I'm comfortable with allows me to adapt and improve and, maybe, rise to the challenge of the hardcore levels one day.

Hard Games shouldn't have easy modes

There's several different ways to approach the creation of entertainment and satisfying your consumers, sometimes it's by making them contented and happy but, and this goes especially true for interactive mediums such as gaming, sometimes challenging them is the point. Don't get me wrong, most of the time it's never really a sound strategy to make a game that intentionally frustrates players unless you're actually making a troll game. (Cat Mario-for instance) That doesn't mean, however, that a game can't place itself outside of your comfort level, as long as it then gives you the space and resources to develop and reach that level. Games such as that, and my mind goes to some of the tougher rougelites seeing as how that's what I've had recent experience with, fall back on intrinsic development within the player and meticulously craft themselves in order to make that satisfying. It's by no means a simple proposition, and it would be nigh on insulting to say that difficulty games with an easy mode are the result of lazy developers, but a final game which can put up solid walls and let players, through determination and skill, crack them is always going to feel more rewarding then one which is just a sandbox for destruction and power fantasies. Those titles are fine, but they don't tell an intrinsic journey that ultimately improves the player by the end, not just the avatar they're controlling.

Bringing this around to Dark Souls, there we have a game which almost perfectly encapsulates this whole philosophy with gusto. At it's core the famous gameplay of Dark Souls shoots at being unforgiving, but blameless. Through tight controls, comprehensive inertia, telegraphing enemies and just consistent rules of play across the board, never once does it intentionally put you in a position where failure is it's fault, it's always your own. Is this stressful? At times. Can this be frustrating? If you let it. But in it lies a challenge, that if you give yourself the chance to preserve, learn and improve the game will give you your hard earned victory. Pulling away the consequences for losing, making mistakes less punishing or making the struggles less full, softens that eventual victory. Where's the relief in victory without the challenge to get there. And, I know it's kind of low blow, but struggle is sort of the entire point of the Dark Souls game as a work of art. It's not a power fantasy of blowing through this dark medieval world, but a journey from the bottom of the foodchain as a wastrel to the point of becoming a Lord. Thus an 'easy mode' would sort of betray the nature of the very game you're playing. 

When I've come to tough games I recognise the feeling of being frustrated, but what differentiates that from games with sliding difficulty scales is that those sorts of challenge games are typically built specifically for the climate of challenge that's presented. Cuphead is created so that a single slip up has the potential to throw you back most of a level, and making compromises along the chain threatens to scar the integrity of the whole gameplay experience. Does this make it so that these games aren't for everyone, yes it does; but there's nothing wrong with that. If I want to play a more casual game because that's just the mood I'm in then I have that option, there's no need to force myself to play something I don't want to. Does that limit the growth of these sorts of games somewhat? Perhaps, but it also, inexplicably, builds upon their allure, because everyone loves the bragging rights of saying that they took on and beat a game considered to be one of the toughest.

At the end of the day all anyone's wants to do is to spread their love of games to new experiences and try out the new hotness that everyone else says is great, but it can feel demeaning when you're just not in the demographic for that sort of game. Although, one could go so far as to say that's just the natural breakdown of consumers; some products are better suited to some types of people over others, there's nothing you can really do to please everyone and trying to often results in some of the most confused games of all time. (Resident Evil 6, for example) Maybe equating this situation to spreading oneself too thin seems odd to you, but I've always held the belief that when designing art it's of foremost import to be true to the work and catering for the audience should never override that. Does that mean some games are supposed to be prohibitively tough and there's nothing that should be done about it? Maybe, but that doesn't exactly sound right either. It's an argument of tug and pull that perhaps lacks a 'please everyone' option, but how do you fall on the conversation? Let me know in feedback.

Speedrunning done quick

Rolling around at the speed of sound.

Quite often when it comes to competition in games we default to thinking of the online space. Ranked online matches, tournament games and E-sports come to mind. But what about the perfectionists, those that compete against each other to see who can be the fastest to push through a game, start to finish? Well, then we enter the world of Speedrunning and GDQ (Games Done Quick). People have been finding ways to rush through their favourite games since the days of the super Nintendo at least, and likely won't ever stop. The challenge comes from being intimately familiar with mechanics and exploits whilst displaying appropriate reaction time to act upon this information in order to edge those few seconds ahead of the last person to attempt this. 

Although Speedrunning has only entered the prominence fairly recently, the art form didn't go unnoticed before the founding of GDQ. Who remembers the 1989 commercial/movie 'The Wizard' with Fred Savage? The entire driving plot point of that film revolved around the $50 000 prize for Speedrunning the first level of the, as-of-yet unreleased, Super Mario Bros 3. Of course, that movie was terrible and everyone involved likely wishes they could erase it from their memory, but is shows that Nintendo were aware of the Speedrunning community and wanted to represent them in their cinematic opus. At least before their next opus, the 'Super Mario Bros' movie.

For my part I will readily admit, Speedrunning was never really my go-to choice for video game entertainment. As someone who likes to immerse themselves fully into the video game world, the last thing I want is to be thinking about how to break boundaries in order to skip a difficult section, however I can still respect the level of talent and acumen required to pull it off. The first time I witnessed someone showcase the Level-glitch in 'The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past' I was certainly blown away. Using the way that the game stores it's levels, an enterprising player can skip from the first few screen to the last in no time and beat the game in just under 5 minutes, it's pretty wild.

Some developers have even begun implementing mechanics and design choices in order to facilitate a speedrunning meta. This can be as wide changing as when Ryan Clark edited many spare items in 'Crypt of the Necrodancer' to deal damage instead of reward health and gold, which were both useless to Speedrunners or as simple as adding a tracking clock which you can even find in games like 'Hitman 2: No subtitle'. Interacting with, and including, the Speedrunner community with your game is a great way to help cement it's success and longevity. Speedrunners have been known to comb games for years to rinse out every lest secret and deeply hidden mechanic. Just look at the work that went into wringing all the secrets out of 'Spelunky'. You could spend hours online jumping from forum to forum and still not dig up half of the information that Speedrunners have uncovered regarding secret levels, deep mechanics and the like.

There are times when games find themselves naturally pre-built for the Speedrunning world without having to be built from the ground up in order to accommodate them. Just look at 'The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild'. From the merit of Nintendo's direction in design alone, people decided that BoTW would be the perfect choice for Speedrunning. The game starts off by placing players atop a large chunk of land apart from the rest of Hyrule and forces them through a tutorial before it lets them leave. Once they do leave, however, the entire world is open to them. Players can follow the narrative and travel to the four corners of the land, getting more powerful and resilient as they go, preparing for the final conflict one divine beast at a time. Or they could just B-line it for Hyrule castle and face down Ganon straight up. Not the easiest option, given that you start the game in tattered rags with no weapons and only 3 hearts, but certainly the quickest. And yes, it would be naive to think the Nintendo, of all people, didn't think about the Speedrunning possibilities at all when they made BoTW, but I don't believe that they would design an entire mainline entry around that community. It may have been one of many deciding factors toward the open world Hyrule we know and love, but it certainly wasn't the determiner.

Some games enter the sphere of Speedrunning from genre's one wouldn't expect. Somehow the Resident Evil games are popular for Speedrunners despite being games that inhabit the horror genre. When I imagine Resident Evil, I imagine creeping horror with the occasional puzzle and a fair amount of jump scares; apparently some people just see a race course. 'Resident Evil 7: Biohazard' even went so far as to add a mode that was based around Speedrunning the length of the map with a timer in the corner counting your progress. 'Resident Evil 2: Remake' added a similar mode and a rotating quota of weekly challenges that encourage players to speed through the game in order to beat their posted times. Heck, even the original had some of it's secret weapons locked behind the players ability to finish the game before 3 or 5 hours. (I literally got 11 minutes away from the rocket launcher one time.)

Then there are the challenging games. The ones that foster a reputation for being tough as nails, harrowing experiences that only the stubborn and insane should attempt. Then a Speedrunner comes along and puts everyone to shame by finishing the thing in no time flat. Of course, I'm talking about games like Cuphead and Dark Souls. For some, the mere act of reaching the end is cause for celebration; but for others, they won't be happy until they finish Dark Souls 2 in 14 minutes. It could be argued that in situations like this the purpose of the game is lost but then the same could be said for any atypical method of play, couldn't it?

There are times, however, when it is more impressive to see how quickly someone can complete everything a game has to other, rather than how well they can pull off a wall glitch. That's when you start seeing % runs on 'Donkey Kong Country' or 'Crash Bandicoot'. For a completionist, like myself, this is where you get to see the real masters show you how it's done. Beating the game on it's own terms with all the pinpoint precision going into efficient root optimization and corner skipping. Perhaps I find myself more inclined toward this style of Speedrun because I remember beating 'Batman: Arkham Asylum' for a full 100% in under 6 hours one day. My own claim to Speedrunning fame. Although I'm sure that's not a patch on the actual record, I'm too scared to check.

I see Speedrunning as a very active way in which the gaming community has chosen to show their love for the world's best pastime. (I'm not Biased. Honest.) We show how much we care about these games by breaking them, simplifying them, and speeding through as quickly as possible. It's win win scenario. Gamers get a competitive element to their games that seems so much more worthy then the 'high scores' of yesteryear and developers get to have their games bought and played by more and more people eager to prove their Speedrunning skills. I may moan and gripe about how it's not the way I would play the game but at the end of the day that's not the point. Speedrunning is a sport for those perfectionists that like going above and beyond your average gamer, and they've built one of the most amiable competitive communities in entrainment around that niche. Now, that's praise-worthy all on it's own.