Is it too late for Days Gone 2?

 

Days Gone was a zombie game I didn't really expect to like when I picked it up. Open world and narratively linear- I was kind of expecting the 'Ubisoft' of zombie titles that was going to burn me out as surely as every other recent Ubisoft game unfailing has. What I found instead was an impressively well realised character driven story that focused on grief, purpose and flashes of redemption. Perhaps not as impactfully as Red Dead Redemption 2 did it, but solidly enough to win my surprised recommendation when I reviewed the game not very long ago. And considering how that game ended with a cliff-hanger- the question has been asked now and then whether or not the game is truly ready for a sequel follow-up in the coming years.

Of course, the not-so stellar critical reception of the game when it first released might have been the kibosh on that particular train of thought. Sony didn't particularly want a game that couldn't hit the perfect scores of their other high-premium first party titles and thus made it decently clear to Bend Studio that a sequel wouldn't be on the table anytime soon. Similarly, the game director of Days Gone has made it a not-so-secret that the game did not quite sell as well as it come have; particularly with the man drunkenly lambasting everyone who doesn't pick up games full price in the first week as untrue fans who don't care about supporting developers. Which I guess makes me a freakin' war criminal in the games industry because I pick up about 1 full price game every two years or so. 

But recently it seems like Days Gone can't really stay out of being in the news, despite the apparently 'dead in the water' status of the franchise. That former studio director recently scored headlines by saying the head scratching cliffhanger of the original game was set-up to lead into a trilogy of games, not just a boring old sequel- which sparked up questions about whether or not such a plan could really be in the drain like everyone says. Bend Studio had to reaffirm that the franchise was dead, they're moving on to new IP and even took the time to sneak-diss their old Director by claiming this was all being drummed up for likes. Not that I blame them, to be honest- he does come off an a whiny dick in a lot of his diatribes. 

So it would seem that the official word is good and said no matter how many times that director tries to impress "never say never!"; but if there's one thing we've come to learn about Sony, the real people in charge of making decisions around here, it's that they don't have a backbone when it comes to public pressure. They folded like a deck of cards when it came to Helldivers 2, pulled back on their Live Service hellhole plans when The Last of Us developers straight clowned on them and I'll bet that if enough fan fever is drummed up they will turn around and un-cancel this franchise. In fact, I'll bet that is what the Director is low-key drumming for with all of these breadcrumbs he keeps dropping. And it wouldn't be the strangest heel-turn that Sony has ever done. Remember when the Internet tricked them into re-investing into placing a critical and commercial bomb of a movie back in theatres because meme culture convinced them it would be popular? (Morbius remembers.)

The original Days Gone game presented itself as a showcase of technical ability presenting giant hoards of zombies moving as one that were actual threats the player had to face. There were times when these served as simply background set-pieces to story moments and others when you would literally be diving in a cave, visualise the sound around you (as you can) and spot several thousand bodies rushing through the caves directly coming for your head. It was tense, dramatic damn near terrifying at times. It also wasn't a half-bad third person action game featuring really punchy shooting, entirely serviceable melee and a bike combat minigame that... existed. I guess.

There was certainly room to grow in terms of scale. Living out in the sticks were could only hear about how insane the cities were under the hoards of the undead, but imagine actually getting to see that in front of you! It would be like living in an actual World War Z game with bodies climbing over other bodes in order to scale walls. Skyscrapers stuffed with enemies. Big explosive weapons to deal with them- they hadn't reached the apex of what this idea provided, not by a long shot! As for Deacon's personal journey- that I'm less sure on. There would have certainly been room to expand if, you know, the third act of this game hadn't happened. But it did, and in doing so sort-of inexplicably resolved all of Deacon's personal issues. They really could have saved all of that for at least the sequel.

But of course we would have to ask ourselves in that much more abstract way- is the world really down for more Zombie games? The situation is not as dire as it were- zombies games aren't hitting the shelves every other day and most of those do look pretty interesting. Even State of Decay 3 looked pretty damn easy on the eyes. But that doesn't mean there isn't a certain subset who just absolutely do not want to hear about it when it comes to the rotting and I can't exactly sit back and pretend there haven't been one too many zombie franchises in the gaming world. Do we really need another one? One that explores character motives does hit a little a differently than your standard fair I would argue, but realising that would take people actually playing this game to learn that it's different and... most people just didn't want to.

I think it really would take a miracle for Sony to suddenly throw Days Gone back into sudden production but I suppose stranger things have happened in the house of blue. I just think most people have really moved on from this game and in doing so enfranchised a belief that the original game was 'mid', when I would most certianly assist it is well above average by most every estimation. But who is going to take the time to check? Still, I will say it's smart of the director to try and apply pressure on Sony themselves because we know just how out-of-touch those guys can be on the best of days. If he really wants to make this happen- those are the right feathers to rustle. And if the impossible does come to pass- you can bet I'll pick up my copy... provided it actually comes to PC day one this time around, of course... 

Days Gone Review

When first we heard of it, Days Gone was little more than another Playstation exclusive game with a lot of zombies in it. Which in that way made it a strange companion piece to the already existing 'The Last of Us' which was widely considered an absolute masterpiece. Sure, Days Gone impressed with the unique-looking rat-like scrambling horde animations which made their 'Freaks' look like they came out of a scene from World War Z- but there was no way this would hit the same emotional sticking points that the deeply narrative-driven story of Joel and Ellie did. Which was probably why Days Gone got the shade that it did so early on. As it would transpire, Days Gone would launch to strong sales but a mixed critical reception, the latter of which would seemingly go on to doom the budding franchise to never be realised. (Despite what one of the game director's would later insist when it came to 'sales' and 'buying games at full price'.)

Over the years I've heard it mentioned time and time again that the real 'problem' with Days Gone was just that it wasn't quite to the same level of quality as your typical first party Sony game, which was why it wasn't worth the support. John Garvin inspired such discourse with his own comments about what killed the game, namely the technical problems at launch, (A smattering of which still persist to this day on the PC version, I can attest. Although not enough to be experience killing.) the fact that it's reviewers apparently 'couldn't be bothered to play the game' (A point I have some thoughts about later) and finally, iconicly, "it had woke reviewers who couldn't handle a gruff white biker looking at his date's ass." Now John Garvin seems to have always been something of an ass from what I read about him, and clearly has a tendency to let his passions overwhelm him to the point where his rectal refuse spews out of his soup hole- however: I will say that after actually playing Days Gone- I finally understand this tweet storm.

Not that I think the points he was making were sound. Apart from the technical difficulties which were apparent in reviews, everything else is the exact type of seething cope you expect from Twitter chuds- not a video game director. However, I can understand why the failure of Days Gone would get the man passionate enough to dribble diarrhea in place of sensible words. Because you see, Days Gone is not a middle of the road game like it's review aggregates place it. It's actually a good game. I'd go so far as to call it 'very good' in parts. What I think Days Gone suffers from is merely being a game of a similar genre and emotional tone to The Last of Us, an actual masterpiece. The comparison, unfavourable as it is, stamps down the actual quality elements that make Days Gone, a mechanically distinct entity, shine. And that is what I want to talk about in this here review. 

Days Gone is a zombie game, as I have mentioned, however it places itself in rare company as being one of only two zombie games that I know of (excluding VNs that I've read.) which push a serious-toned character driven narrative over an action driven one. Name any zombie game under the sun, Dead Rising, Dead Island, Dying Light- all of those games- and you'll find these action-driven narratives that excel in the exploration of the zombie slaying fantasy. Each one of these games, at their heart, ask the question- how can we use our position as a video game to provide wacky and creative zombie kills or unique zombie-player interactions. Those games are built around the inherently game-friendly concept of zombie slaying. Days Gone and The Last of Us- use the zombie apocalypse concept in it's more narrative-friendly sense- to mirror the animalistic cruelty of a world that has lost the framework of society to contain it. And that is not easy to do.

Somewhat similar to my feelings when first playing Death Stranding- Days Gone was not a game I understood right away. In it's early few missions, thrown into the woody trails of rural Oregon, I honestly struggled to find a thread worth following. Not expecting a character-driven narrative, for how rare they are in video games, I genuinely felt like we were spinning wheels going nowhere and was fully ready to check out emotionally from the game. Afterall, the world of the game is intentionally grim and brown- populated in the early game by just a couple of outposts manned with decidedly grounded and human personalities. The 'Freaks' (their word for 'Zombie') looked uninspired and lacked the crazy variations that Left for Dead envisioned and everyone else copied. By all rights Days Gone should have bored me to tears right out of the gate. But it didn't.

Sam Witwer is an actor I always kind of liked for his work in Star Wars, as Starkiller and Darth Maul, he always stood out well enough. And it helped that Star Killer was literally modelled after his face so unlike most actors, I knew the man's face well enough to recognise him in other properties. What he brings to Deacon St John, the protagonist of Days Gone, is nothing short of extraordinary in how it alone keeps this world together. What should be the most boring zombie setting of all time is given flavour for the lens of playing as Deacon St John, a impressively human survivor, selfish and irreverent and yet endearing and charismatic. Of course his writing deserves considerable praise too, (Garvin was a writer, I see, so I guess I can give him some credit this direction.) but Sam works his butt off bringing humanity into every single interaction as Deacon, making the character endlessly watchable. If this game starred Kyle Crane or even Frank West- it wouldn't have worked. Deacon was everything he needed to be to sell Days Gone, and wearing Sam Witwer's face he made me stick around until the credits.

Days Gone frames it's gameplay loop around navigating the open world on bike-back, scavenging for supplies and crafting components and keeping your bike fuelled up where possible. Deacon's Bike has to be one of the least fuel-effective vehicles to ever run, because that baby runs out every ten minutes or so. (The game even tells you to glide down slopes when possible to conserve ammo! Has the tank got a permanent bullet hole in it or something?) Now as much as it sounds it, the Bike doesn't actually play a huge role outside of traversal and being a point from which you save (making it practically your lifeline) because it, somewhat realistically, breaks down pretty easily if you try to plough over enemies and the fact that Freaks can launch themselves at you in order to knock you off the thing. Honestly, there's so many traps and foils specifically made for getting you off the Bike so that you can't run away, sometimes it feels like the developers don't want you riding around on the thing!

Freaks break the conventions of your Dead Rising type zombies, in that they keep a decent pace (not quite sprinting) and actually react to sound appropriately, creating those fun moments of dynamic decision making between risking taking a shot and spending half the durability of your disposal bat you've lugged about all this time. The freaks of Days Gone aren't actually given a great many variants like you might find in other zombie titles but the few they have seem grounded enough to not make the world seem too cartoonish. No giant bulbous bloaters who explode in puffs of bile, or giant mutant tank monsters- but you do get your average Swarmers who like to rush you straight, and your tiny Newts who stick to rooftops and only attack if you invade their territory or hobble about looking like easy prey with only a slither of health. As the game progresses the variants get a bit more interesting but nothing really iconic or memorable ever turns up. Even the big 'scary' late game Freak is just a bit obnoxiously fast.

Where the freaks really come to life is in those giant hordes that were shown off in the E3 demo. These are truly intimidating tidal waves of corpses that surge after you in unison, pouring in from every doorway and window in one swarm. The adrenaline really starts to pile up when you realise there is no trick here, these hoards can only be retreated from and whittled down piece by piece in giant slogs of close calls, panic decisions and mad sprints. The climbing ability of the Freaks means there's nowhere you can go that they can't follow and the more realistically muted 'burst' of explosives means that you're probably going to burn through everything you have everytime you wake a group up. To say nothing of the accidental hordes you summon. (I may never forget the horror of the army that turned out to be snoozing just above in that cave I was clearing out.)

But as with any Zombie story, the humans are actually the driving force of the game and this may be one of the only zombie games ever not to recycle zombie NPC code for their human enemies! The enemy AI isn't entirely braindead for once! And with the semi-decent 3rd person shooting mechanics and the scrappy melee combat, these little shootouts feel a lot more satisfying then fighting humans in a zombie game really should. I actually enjoyed hunting down bandit camps for the brief thrill of those tense snappy cover-based fire-fights wherein, once they have a track of you, the AI starts flanking and surrounding you- forcing the player to get creative. Double points for the 'line of sight' stealth system allowing you to slip away in the middle of a fight and disappear, leading the AI into a trap of your own! And yet, I will admit that early game fire fights felt better because of the scarceness of resources. Once you get practically unlimited ammo after a few hours of playing, the lustre slightly fades. (Why bother hastily switching weapons in a panicked scramble when I can just roll up to a locker and magically refill my assault rifle super easily?)

As a 'drifter', Deacon's connection to the world around him is transitory as the Biker simply wants to move forwards and onwards in his attempt to get over the mourning he has been trapped within over the past two years since losing his wife. Those characteristics frame who he is and the circle he keeps, with his selfishness and mercenary sensibilities coloured under the knowledge that in his mind, Deacon simply wants to escape the valley his wife died in. That humanising element is really the key to making any character like this work, and it's what makes him so much more endearing than your typically motor-mouthed asshole protagonist who's just in a bad mood until the story decides it's time for him to be the hero for a change. Deacon's entire journey is spent around the development of who he is, the connections he ends up making despite himself and how his priorities change- one might call into question some of the narrative choices taken in the second half of this game slightly undermining the sacrificial nature of that development- but in complete execution I actually think his story is handled exceptionally.

One of the most interesting aspects of any 'end of the world' story is picking out the types of people who would survive through a mass extinction event, and Days Gone's common-sense approach to it's world building brings you a sensible co-cast of believable assholes. The annoying prepper-conspiracy-hat Copeland- a character easy to make archetypal but played with some reserve here, so as to better resemble that cast of the deeply mistrusting misanthrope who, although many of his emotional viewpoints align with Deacon, his incessant politics are irksome. Our Tucker, the jack-booted wardeness with her empathy-free approach to running a post world camp making the woman a hop-skip and a jump away from an actual slave driver. These could have easily been generic quest givers, but their personalities and performances come to life with a tangibility rare in the Ubisoft-style open world game, which I do think this is.

The emotional drives of Deacon's early game journey make for compelling viewing, and some quests that simply play out a small scene with his close Biker friend Boomer as they work through their plan to head north are the substance of this decidedly narrative-championing open world title. Of course, quite early on their plan hits a major snag as Boomer suffers a serious injury and Deacon is forced to stick around for a while longer, running bounties for Copeland and putting up with the small smatterings of society that he is trying to run away from. Deacon is not presented as an obvious character, who presents all his thoughts out loud to the audience lest they get lost, his story is presented largely in performance instead.

As the story progresses a tighter ring of plot is closed around the story, actions start to pick up and actual stakes are introduced to balance against the whims and wants of the characters- putting everyone to the test. My one critique in this regard would have to be the villains of this game, who aren't given the time to become as developed as everyone else. None of which are cookie cutter wastes of time, mind you, but there's never really given any moral weight about the decision to go kill the big bad guy. It's just- 'this guy is crazy and killing him is very obviously the correct course of action', which seems strange in a story where the question of pacifism and the cycle of violence is raised as a significant plot point; and meets a somewhat... unorthodox answer in the last act of the game. Even in messaging Days Gone is decidedly non-average.

When the game hits it's conclusion there is a genuine wealth of progress made both in the core narrative and the progression of Deacon as a character to such a point that he feels naturally developed, rather than yanked into being the 'hero' character he needs to be... and then the game keeps going. Yeah, just like with The Phantom Pain, Days Gone has the conclusion of it's plot at the halfway mark and then tries to restart all of it's momentum from scratch in order to tell a whole other half of game. It feels like the Days Gone we got was actually the original game and the sequel welded together, and though there's significant plot development, a whole cast of new characters and a fresh journey to go for Deacon to mature just a little bit more- it doesn't hit as hard as the first half of the game does.

Perhaps that might be because the game itself runs out of new tricks to keep throwing the player's way except for slightly more durable versions of the enemies you already know and supremely frustratingly annoying zombie birds. (There have never been good zombie birds, why do we keep getting them as an idea?) Most of the late game missions are literal fetch quests picking out Styrofoam cups from the back of overturned trucks- and after the crazy high stakes of the mid-game finale it just feels like you're spinning wheels. The story loses a touch of it's grounded maturity too, slipping into the farcical and overexaggerated with a religiously charged comic book psycho militia general with confused ideals and a purposefully unfocused plan. And the finale just slips into action movie farce- it's a bit of a shame really.

Days Gone also has a strange relationship with it's side content, in that you're often contacted to go pick up side quests- but those quests are always bounty hunts. It's seems as though there might have once been more variety for what the various settlements could ask of Deacon, but that got lost somewhere in translation? The world is dotted with exploration objectives, most of which promise actual decent rewards like exclusive weapons or stat boosts, elevating them above your typical Ubisoft open world objective, and there's a touch of personality tucked away in the smallest corners of the map. Special animations or encounters you'll only find in one place across the whole game, all crediting to a specially attentive world space. If only there was a bit more variety in world activities to give exploration a little more of a shelf life. As it happens, I stopped playing not too long after finishing the game and just looked up the several post game scenes online. 

In conclusion

Days Gone is a victim, of it's environment as a story-based open world zombie game that got quickly railroaded by the king of that genre which released around about the same time. It treats it's audience with a level of maturity uncommon of other titles in this vein, and though the second half of the game loses it's edge- the strengths are not overwritten by the flaws. I still wonder whether or not the 'Open World' design angle was the best way to go to suit this story, but Bend Studio gave it a solid shot regardless creating a Woodland backdrop worth experiencing at least once. I would actually recommend this game to those who missed it the first time around, especially for the sorts of prices you can find the game at nowadays- it's a steal! As for the actual rating- that might be a little bit harder. Were it not for the second half of this game I could honestly justify going into the A's- but being as long toothed as it is, dragging out the story where it didn't need to, I'm going to have to settle with a respectable B+ Grade in my arbitrary scale- which is several notches higher than I ever expected to go, let me tell you! It's honestly a shame we'll never get a sequel- I wonder where the franchise could have gone next.

Days Gone nuts

 Not again...

Art is tough. Painful, even. Some have compared the act of creating a piece of art to show to the rest of the world like cutting off a piece of your flesh and serving it up, whilst others consider it like killing your own child. If you're wondering why these comparisons and allusions are always so maudlin and fatalist, remember these are the musings of artists. As such, one can only imagine the pain of publishing a piece of work that doesn't receive the reverence of it's peers, in fact; a game that can seen as something of a black sheep among certain circles. It must sting. But such is the brunt of what artists bear, it's the risk with bearing yourself like that, and what you need to learn from such circumstances is how to learn and grow from criticism. What doesn't help, literally anyone, is going on a massive spree of blaming literally everyone else in the world but the product itself. It's the fans- no, it's the critics, no- it's the little green men who live in my head and call me rude names in their unspeakable language!

Believe it or not the director of Days Gone, Sony's lukewarm zombie survival game, has actually managed to make himself look a little silly with his ravings once before; although that time it was aimed at fans. If you remember, the director screamed about how fans who don't buy games on the first week, totally blind, at full price, without waiting for reviews or second opinions, are the poison to modern games. He argued that those who don't contribute to week one sales just are letting down the games companies and those who seek out sales before making their purchasing decisions are the reasons why games they like don't get sequels. Now to be fair to the man, he was working in the higher echelons of AAA where competition is extremely tough and every little last ounce of success you can squeeze out benefits your chances of remaining near the top. And at such a point, sure; I'd imagine your fans do start becoming nothing more than numbers on a spreadsheet.

That being said, blaming 'lazy fans' for Days Gone not being a smash hit, thus scuppering the chances of Sony ordering a sequel, is a bit reductive; isn't it? When I introduced 'Days Gone' as 'Lukewarm', that wasn't just a perception I pulled out of my head, that was the general consensus by critics and audiences. Which isn't to say there aren't people that really loved its style, of course there were; but no one seems to have been really blown away, by what Days Gone had to offer. Now that shouldn't have really been a problem but again; Sony are particularly demanding pay masters. They demand excellence and success at every turn and if you can't deliver that for them, they'll start trimming fat. And Days Gone was somewhat formulaic, it was rough around the edges, the loop started to drag around about the mid-point of the game, the narrative was fine and not particularly satisfying; it was a good zombie game, but it wasn't a Sony platinum.

And when you really address these common complaints and seek out the root cause of them, well at some point you're going to have to come back to the process of making the game. Now no one outside of the development studio can tell you what happened in there, if conceptual ideas weren't particularly strong or if technology just couldn't keep up with their grand ideas; all we have is the final, 7/10, product. A responsible and self-confident game director would likely own the difficulties and problems of such a scenario and not let that define them or their team. A great game director would take on all of those issues as areas from which to improve to ensure that the next project, however big or small it may be, is the slam dunk you wished that last one to be. What neither of those theoretical would do, however, is whine about how it's still everyone else's fault.

The reason why a director wouldn't do that, is because it fosters a kind of uncomfortable environment where those sorts of sentiments trickle down and take route, ultimately creating an unpleasant work space to be a part of. (I've been inside such a crappy unit myself once.) Point in case with another big member of the Days Gone team who recently went on a little Twitter rant about the unfair treatment of Days Gone in the review circuit; a title which even I will admit was overshadowed perhaps a bit more than it should have been; but it was a zombie game at a time when that genre was squeezed all but dry, so that might have something to do with it. This key development member responded to how the PC port scored better than the console version, subtly hinting that the better scores were due to bad code of the original being cleaned up. Passing the buck again, this time onto his former colleagues. (Very professional...)

He also went the truly humorous route of blaming the lack of 'household name' status for the game on reviewers who couldn't be bothered to play the game, or that were too 'woke' to take a 'badass biker who stares at his girlfriend's ass'! So if you're finished choking to death on the lethal levels of cringe in that sentence, let's dissect. Our man seems utterly oblivious to the fact that people could have played his game and found the gameplay loop to be repetitive and tedious; I can say for myself I've seen people play the thing and make that observation live with no contributing stimuli, but I guess in his head that's a false criticism conjured up by a coordinated class of reviewer who couldn't push themselves through a zombie survival game. If these same outlets managed to endure Watch Dogs Legion, I'll bet they had a blast rocking through Days Gone.

As for the 'wokeness' allegations; come on. Honestly, the take away that I found most had to the whole romance subplot was that it felt emotionally stoic and unmoving. People didn't really care about the girlfriend character or where she was, and seeing as how that was supposed to be the emotional backbone of the main character, players failed to get fully invested in the stakes of the plot. At least in 'Dead Space' the fate of Nicole was shrouded in intrigue and semi-cosmic mystery. But sure, I guess it makes him happy to think that everyone was just so utterly upset by how much of a 'manly man' mr generic protagonist was that they got their woke liberal agendas twisted up in the prissy 'my-little-kitty' panties; because that is what everything in life whittles down to, doesn't it? The imaginary clashing war of moralities that exists entirely within the heads of emotionally stunted weirdoes. Ah, to be an abject moron; what oblivious bliss that must be!

To his small credit, this developer did turn around in a later statement and declare that he didn't mean to throw his fellow programmers under the bus. He was merely highlighting that the Days Gone project was far above their weight class and the team did an admirable, if messy, job in meeting their ambitions; to which I would agree. Technologically; Days Gone's systems work fine. If only the ideas forming those systems were more interesting. Then he did what all tough Twitter folk do, and privated his account for the backlash he got on that public forum he entered. (If you can't take the criticism; why post it on Twitter?) Such is the quite surprising backlash from a decent Sony exclusive that I honestly thought would have done a mint, but which has unravelled more in the years since than it's spotty launch had done. Maybe let the art speak for itself next time, maybe that way your legacy would be a bit less muddy.

Days Gone 2: Killed by gamers

 We are gathered here today

Are you a gamer? Do you enjoy spending some of that free-time currency with the ever creative medium of gaming? Well then you just make me sick, you depraved degenerate! Because that just means you, alongside all others of your kind, are responsible for the death of Days Gone 2. Or rather, we as a people are responsible for the termination of Days Gone 2 in utero, because although the game was cancelled before it was even made, we are the culprit at the end of it all. We are the one's found above the dining room with a bloody candlestick and a wanting alibi. (I assume those references made sense. I've never actually played Cluedo) So I guess the question is; Why'd you do it? Or why did we do it? Are we just a sick twisted people drunk on the sensation of crushing dreams? Maybe it's because we hate all artists and developers and want them to suffer and starve. Yeah, I'm thinking we're getting close to the root of the cancer. Maybe then we can finally validate to the former Bend director of Days Gone that we're all just as much degenerate scumbags as he knows we are.

Did I lay it on a bit thick? Sorry if any of my sarcasm actually offended you out there, I've worked up quite the immunity to name calling and general self loathing so I can get kind of carried away at times. But that little diatribe up there is really the first thought that came to my mind when I read John Garvin's views about the whole Days Gone 2 situation. But just in case you've found yourself out of the loop and am currently looking at this sentence with the glazed out expression of someone trying desperately to care; I'll consolidate. On my Birthday in 2019 (that's April 26) Sony publish a zombie biker open-world (survival?) game called Days Gone. It proceeded the usual flair and excitement that Sony originals got, which is why when it dropped and was only 'good', that stood out as a misfire from a studio that was determined to establish a reputation of publishing only excellence. That game sold well, but not amazingly, and now we've learnt that plans for a sequel have been scrapped for the time being and Bend Studio is without the franchise that they deserved. Also, we miss out on another Sam Witwer performance, and I positively adore Sam Witwer so that alone makes me devastated.

Yet in the words of a sullen pre-impetus Peter Parker; "I missed the part where that's my problem." Well don't worry cause John Garvin's got you there. I mean, he's not going to shoot your uncle, but he's got you covered anyway. Garvin was actually a featured guest on David Jaffe's (the creator of God of War) Youtube channel, whereupon he let off some choice opinions about the game he wrote for back when he worked for Bend. (which he didn't at the time of saying this) When addressed with the fact that Days Gone would be coming to the PS5 collection, our protagonist retorted with something that he admitted he knew would annoy some people. "If you love a game, buy it at full f******* price." (Sorry my man, no F-bombs on this blog) He extrapolated. "I can't tell you how many times I've seen gamers say 'yeah, I got that on sale, I got it through PS Plus, whatever-" Jaffe replied with the quite sound argument that one can't exactly say they love a game if they haven't played it, but our man Garvin knows how to sidestep, alright? He's on that politician game right now, avoiding direct questions like Muhammad Ali out here. "I'm just saying, you don't, but don't complain if a game doesn't get a sequel if it wasn't supported at launch." He then went on to make some modern God of War comparisons but that's just apples to oranges. Not really interesting.

The take away, as I see it, is obvious. Damn, gamers killed Days Gone 2 by not flocking to it like rapid monkeys on a banana tree. (Are monkey's really addicted to banana's like that? I feel like that's cartoon propaganda, gimme a sec- nah, at face value it would seem that they are. I don't care enough to really research.) Whereas other developers recently rode against Sony and their obsession with publishing nothing but constant blockbusters in a frankly unsustainable death march to perpetual improvement, Garvin's over here saying "No, all that stuff is fine. The gamers just failed to live up to their end of the bargain by mortgaging their house in order to buy my 7/10 game." And yeah, I suppose that's a very... a quite... well it's a point. That much is without doubt. Lets run with that a bit, shall we?

So video games live and die on the strength of their sales and engagement. That's what makes it clear to the investors that these developers know what they're doing and can make a buck. Therefore that does but the pressure of success onto the gamers to 'support' the game in order to keep everything hunky dory. Additionally, for some reason investors really care about week one sales over the lifetime performance most of the time, so I guess by Garvin's reasoning that means anyone who waits for a sale is a lazy scumbag who's prioritizing their bum selves over the poor company who makes the game. I guess I'm about to reveal myself as the embodiment of all scum them, because I haven't bought a game day one at full price since 2019. (And no, that game wasn't Days Gone. Are you kidding?) How could such inhuman waste like me be allowed to walk this earth without handcuffs and a cell?

Stepping back into my own perspective now, I actually have a reason why I don't buy games full price on day one (and Garvin should like this, it's a mild response with a sidestep!) I can't afford it. Yeah, funny that. I know it makes me the embodiment of Satan himself, but I just don't have the money to be buying every single videogame that I'm excited for just because I need to support the developer. I still pick up the games down the line most of the time, but I guess that doesn't count because it's accursed 'delayed money'. Consumers aren't endless piggy backs, or at least most of them aren't, and some of us really are quite careful about the things we spend our money on. In which case, and to draw from an example he himself used, let's examine why millions would flock to God of War to spend their day one money on over Days Gone. Let's keep this simple. Days Gone's Metacritic is 71. God of War's Metacritic is 94. (As of the writing of this blog) If I've got the spare cash to fork out on only one game at full price, it's going to God of War. But then, buying games day one is usually stupid anyway, and most informed purchases should occur after the game is out there so that we all know what we're buying exactly. Isn't that something developers should support? Empowering the consumer? Unless... unless they don't give a crap about the consumer beyond how much they can financially benefit them... but that's just alleged.

As one can imagine, Garvin's comments, though pre-empted by the man a bit, didn't hit the community well once they were unearthed. People seemingly didn't like getting the blame for the decisions of a multibillionaire company who've sunken into a habit of worshipping metacritic scores and record breaking sales over just solid games. But nones to worry, because once Garvin actually saw the responses and began to emphasise a bit with the customers, he realised the error of his view an- just kidding, he hasn't said jack. The current director of Bend Studio on the otherhand, Eric Jensen, laid out his staunch thanks to anyone who played Days Gone whether picked up "on day one, borrowed- from a friend, watched someone else play it or tried it on PS now." A wave of appreciation perhaps spurred on by the 15000 signature long petition to get Days Gone 2 greenlit again. (When all else fails, I guess) So slightly differing views on that topic, I'd say.

Personally I can see where this Garvin fellow is coming from, as a creative in an industry run by executives it can feel like the entire world is conspiring against you to watch you fail. And then when things don't work out as well as you think they should, it's easy to point fingers at what should seem like the logical culprits without really thinking things through. That and there's the fact that these comments were made in a casual chat with a friend, I understand; stupid, unrefined crap gets said sometimes, that's life. It just makes for supremely bad timing when the gaming world's optics are on Sony's culture and how that's influencing the industry. It just feels like a handwave to all his own contemporaries' experiences. Or maybe he's just saying what they're all thinking, and the wider game development world is as insular, bitter and toxic as the forums over at Resetera would have you believe. At this point I'd totally believe it, why not? It's not enough that the media labels us degenerate monsters-to-be, now developers might be looking at gamers as disloyal cheapskates. Well even if that is the case, jokes on you guys; I rock stingy like a supermodel! 

Sony's tree vs Gaming's forest

How the turns table

One of the more fun aspects of following the gaming world is discovering new ways in which the worlds of information and perspectives can open up to you, with results that you never might have conceived of before. I don't pretend to be some grizzled well-travelled professional pundit who knows the ins and outs of how every business decision across the industry is made, so times come when I'm completely thrown off-guard by a story that makes me go "Oh yeah, I guess that would be a problem, huh." Point in case, this whole sudden backlash that has been thrown Sony's way, a company who recently could do no wrong in the eyes of the average gamer through sheer merit of being the only game manufacturer with any confidence nowadays. (If 'confidence' is what we're labelling callous pig-headedness, but I'm getting ahead of myself) At first all I heard about this story was the news that Sony would be remaking The Last of Us Part 1, (go-go gadget eyeroll) but suddenly those stories ballooned into damning indictments of Sony's entire corporate structure and it seems like the whole world is screaming about how Sony have 'lost their touch' and are 'getting drunk on their own success.'

All of this stems from the accusation that Sony devs are becoming upset with the main company's growing obsession with creating blockbuster titles and how they're slowly shaping their entire company towards only that pursuit. This started with news of Sony folding one of their longest running Japanese studios into another, ending a 27 year long run with one swift consolidating wave. (And losing several employees who were none too pleased about it in the process.) Now this is great news for Microsoft who have been desperate to stick their toes in as many pies as possible; if Sony wants to step away from their home market (a strategy which Sony vehemently denies, by-the-by, regardless of prime evidence to the differ) then that just opens the field for Xbox to secure some of that Japanese audience which they've callously ignored up until now. But, why would Sony be stepping back from Japan to begin with, that is where they're from afterall. (Allegedly stepping back, I should say) Well, indicators suggest it's to move toward the western market and to devote themselves fully to growing the next great blockbuster franchise.

Honestly, this really shouldn't be all that much of a surprise to anyone; Sony have been rather transparent about their business model for a while now. Ever since Uncharted 2 it seems they've been seeking out ways to homogenise the games they publish into a few blockbuster series that cost the GDP of several small countries to make and become must-owns in everyone's library due to their sheer quality. (Thus ensuring a profit) Uncharted, Last of Us, Infamous, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Ghost of Tsushima, Death Stranding, Final Fantasy 7, Spiderman, your mileage might vary on some of those titles but there's no turning around and calling any of them small-fry or time-killer games. These are fully fledged AAA adventures that are designed to rule your summer in the same way that Hollywood does with their latest star-studded superhero movie. These are the games you're going to see printed on billboards, plastered on the side of busses, slid into every TV ad spot, woven into every banner ad, sequestered into every conversation and ultimately stamped onto both eyelids when you try to go to sleep at night. Sony have built themselves into an engine for producing 'Too big to fail' games, and it's only really recently that anyone outside the development studios have had a problem with that.

That's because they make, and seemingly have always made, great games. These aren't just titles that are big for the sake of being big; they typically fill that space with gusto, are technologically innovative and, frankly, are just plain impressive. So what's there to complain about? Well, when you put all your chips into one basket there's bound to be some bad eggs in the bunch. (Mixed metaphors much?) Making all of their games a horrendously bloated mega product makes the economics stand front and centre, influencing decisions astray from what's best for the industry or the artform and angling it more towards, 'what's going to allow us to keep this up for as long as possible?' Point in case- Xbox game pass. Now I don't care about no console loyalty or any of that malarkey; the Game Pass model is the future of game accessibility that more and more studios should be getting in on. (Heck, even Apple have their own version of it!) But stubborn ol' Sony doesn't want to play. Why? Because they invest so much money into each of their exclusives that it just plain wouldn't be finically wise to start sticking them on an affordable subscription service. So there goes Sony's chance to be ahead of the industry trend for game accessibility. And now you're starting to see how stifling this mindset can be.

But so far I've only discussed this from an outsider's angle, because that's where my personal viewpoint lies, however the real interesting elements which sparked my fascination in this matter to begin with actually spreads to the inner workings of this enigmatic gaming giant. One such element being the story of Sony Corp's Visual Arts Service Group, a nameless studio who have been assisting many of these large titles that I've bought up, making them probably some of the most qualified developers in the entire industry right now. (Good lord, those resumes must be gold lamented) But despite their several years worth of hardwork (successful hard work, I might add) the Sony blockbuster machine has kept churning and they've been trapped making other people's products for an age now, lacking autonomy of their own. (The dang studio hasn't even got a name yet! That's just neglectful...) The problem is that Visual Arts Service Group isn't nearly big enough to helm their own AAA blockbuster title, and Sony seems to be interested in nothing less nowadays.

Their story over the past few years has been one of hope getting swiftly crushed, as the Studio hoped to score the right to do their own product by kowtowing to Sony's ravenous hunger and helming a remake. (A much more doable prospect for this studio) They proposed Uncharted 1, which would have been too difficult because of it's age, and instead they settled on a The Last of Us remake. (See, we went full circle) This pleased the great feeding machine, because a remake could be bundled alongside The Last of Us 2's PS5 upgrade, and so the project was approved. Unfortunately, then The Last of Us 2 started to hit development snags and SCVASG (My god, I thought that acronym would read better before I typed it! These guys need a name) was drafted back into a support roll for Naughty Dog. The exact thing they wanted to move away from doing. And then, as if to rub salt into their eyes, upon The Last of Us 2's completion, Sony moved ownership of the The Last of Us Remake project over to Naughty Dog, essential stealing Visual Arts Service Group's idea and robbing them of credits and an identity. The group had been fearing for a while that they were destined to be consolidated into Naughty Dog, and now that seems like a forgone conclusion.

The gaming industry isn't run on the back of tentpole franchises, but a sea of smaller and imaginative titles that fill the gap between these huge event releases. But it seems more and more apparent that Sony is loosing sight of those lily pads in favour of the whole pond. Honestly, I never really thought of this as a bad thing until hearing of these stories, Visuals Art Service Group's and Bend Studio's. (Who got their 'Days Gone' sequel concept tossed out of the window because the first game, despite being profitable, was not a blockbuster success) They paint the picture of a distinctly unsustainable company ethos obsessed with topping itself each and every release; bigger budgets, bigger studios, bigger games and bigger success. And some think this makes them blissfully unaware of what they're setting themselves up for; a major fall. What happens when it all runs out of steam? What will Sony do when these series and studios, as these things do, start to change as old faces leave looking for something new? Will Sony have enough of a bedrock around them to raise another blockbuster studio and keep the train running?  I honestly have no earthly idea.

Sony are a giant of a company who have been on the top of the gaming industry for a while now, so I'm not surprised to learn that their leadership is pretty bullheaded and dismissive. I am surprised, however, to hear the effect it's having to their own talent, and I wonder if this news coming out will spark enough of a response to change their course at all. Because, as much as we may grimace at a studio of talented developers getting crunched up by the Goliathan content creator that is Sony, at the end of the day they're still on the top of their game. Putting out hit after hit, crushing sales figures, raking in awards; what's a little internal discontent against unadulterated success? I may have come around to the accusation that Sony is missing the forest for the trees; but I honestly can't see the Sony of today actually doing something about it. (Maybe the Sony of tomorrow. We'll see.)

In defence of: Checklist open worlds

One down, half a million to go.

You've just loaded up your brand new open world game and you're busy breathing in the air of a new alien world to explore. You look upon this great vast mystery and begin to mourn, mourn for the time when this land has no more secrets, when you know every hill before you approach, and you've delved into every cave. Soon you'll plunge the land of all it's stories and begin to make your own, but until then you have the work of an adventurer to do. There is only one problem. This isn't the kind of world that you will come to know intimately, is it. And that's because it's not just an open world; it's a checklist open world.

The term 'checklist open world' was coined to describe the type of open world experience that is lacking that innate desire to see and be part of everything. I'm talking about the kinds of worlds were you don't feel the careful thought that went behind every rock placement, wherein there isn't a story in every environment and in which you'll likely put down the game long before you start memorizing road names. These are kinds of 'open worlds' that flooded the AAA gaming market back in the early 2010's when the 'open world' trend started to hit it's zenith. Everyone wanted to copy the kind of numbers that games like 'Fallout: New Vegas' and GTA V were pulling in, but most completely underestimated the amount of work and care that the developers need to devote to bring such worlds to life.

I have mentioned my disdain for this kind of practice before, albeit in passing. This is the main reason why I find myself initially repulsed whenever I hear of a new Ubisoft game, because they have been the biggest distributors of Checklist open worlds. And yet, despite my obvious hatred, I still find myself playing through these games from time to time and occasionally enjoying the experience. (Othertimes I end up disgusted in myself for having wasted the hours of my life to play through that junk. Assassin's Creed Rogue owes me at least 8 hours.) So in comes the question; just exactly what is it that distinguishes a bad checklist open world from a good one?

One could see this topic as attempting to distinguish between a dump and a turd, but this series is called 'In defence of' and not 'In condemnation of' (Although working on this blog has seriously made me consider creating the latter) so I'll try to wring out as many positives as possible. Maybe that makes me a hypocrite, but I have no self respect so that's hardly a concern for me. Oh, and do note, this still doesn't mean I like it when game's companies excrete these sorry excuses for games. Nothing could endear me to the development team less, in fact. (That being said there are some of these open worlds the excel in certain areas that are certainly worth mentioning.)

Firstly when addressing a topic like this, it is practically my fiduciary duty to bring up the folk at Ubisoft. When the 'Open world' fad began to hit Ubisoft weren't just early adopters, they were practically the estranged parents of the movement. Before there were even whiffs of the industry heading this direction, Ubisoft made the decision to scrap their linear action adventure series, Prince of Persia, and turn it into a more profitable and creatively freeing game; Assassin's Creed. Most at the time found the game to be a revolution to 3rd person action games and were completely enamoured by the 'free form' story style. In the years to come there has been an Assassin's Creed release almost every year and the series' trends have become industry cliches, so this series is really the place to start when considering the topic at hand.

I must precede my oncoming ribbing by asserting one immutable fact, the world designers for Ubisoft are, in my opinion, second to none. When tasked with realizing an ancient city from another culture, these folk spare no expense in their digital reconstructions and manage to capture the glory and majesty of cultural architecture with undeniable flair. The things they manage to accomplish are frankly amazing and certainly praise worthy. However, I suspect, the plain fact that this team is separate from those that populate the world is perhaps Ubisoft's first misstep.

Activities are one of the most important aspects of creating an open world that feels immersive. It is a way for the player to interact with the world in a way that doesn't break from the flow of gameplay and can even be fun. Early Ubisoft games kinda half understood this dynamic as they implemented what could be charitably called 'activites' but are actually more akin to 'tasks'. (This is where the 'checklist' part of the name comes in.) Whenever you look at the map for a Ubisoft world, you'll often immediately notice how it is cluttered with little icons shoved into every single corner of the world. Initially, this might make you think there is a lot to do, but in reality that just means there is a lot of filler to wade through.

For an example, I'll take a gander at that 'Assassin's Creed: Rogue' game that I mentioned. This is a game that boasts the Pacific Ocean as it's playground with plenty of uncharted islands to see, small eastern colonies to visit and even the budding city of New York to set down in. Once you go to these locations however, you'll notice that there is only a handful of things to do. Either you go around and loot all the map's chests, pick up the floating 'Animus fragments' or, if you're lucky, chase around a floating page with a sea shanty printed on the side. (As if you're crew can read...) There is no intrinsic value attributed to any of these activities and you'll quickly realize that the only reason you are partaking is to complete the collectible tally at the bottom of the screen. (An act which becomes pretty mind numbing by hour 5.)

Games like The Witcher 3 handle such locations in a completely different, and more enjoyable, way. Those games contextualize the character as a Witcher and thus all of his activities are attributed the value of 'Witcher work'. This is a game that'll have you delving ruins in search of treasures but they'll be locations haunted by ghosts and ghouls, hence places where a Witcher is meant to be. Plus, the things you find in these troves are actually valuable, making the journey feel more worthwhile. Now, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone call the Witcher games 'checklist open worlds', but that doesn't mean that game can't teach some things to games like Assassin's Creed.

I will admit, however, that there does come a certain comfort from these kinds of open worlds that focus less on making each area meaningful and instead ensuring they have a practical purpose to exist. I'm sure that I'm not the only person in the world who enjoys multitasking whilst gaming, which is something that can difficult to do in narrative driven games. Sometimes I have other tasks to do and find myself unable to keep up with my favourite narrative driven adventure the way I want to. (That's part of the reason why I've had trouble picking up Xenoblade Chronicles 2.) Games like these can make for suitable background fodder whilst I do other things.

That sounds like a backhanded compliment, but I'm being genuine about my applause here. The more busy we make ourselves the less time we have to do the things that we love to do, and people like me need to keep busy for the sake of our own mental health. Although to pursue that at the cost of my favourite hobby would feel like losing a part of myself that I'll never recover from. (Maybe that's my childishness speaking, but it tends to speak louder then my dissent so I'll listen.) Having a mindless game to keep my hands busy whilst I 'work' (Or whatever it is that I do when I'm not writing these) helps just enough to keep me happy.

Additionally, the ludicrous amount of pointless collectibles in these game offers another interesting bump to the old endorphins. Everyone loves collecting things. It's the sole reason why the Crackdown series was ever popular. (Those little green orbs might as well be full of crack.) Therefore a game in which you endless pursue a seemingly endless stream of collectibles can be fulfilling to the mind on a base level. (If not an intellectual one.) I can speak from experience in how content I've been in spending hours hunting chests around Egypt in Assassin's Creed Origins. I can go through the process of killing time whilst fooling myself into thinking I'm actually achieving something. (That's a positive, I think.)

There is also one of the big problems of these types of games to consider. Their tendency to be too large. That isn't to say that the map is too large for the player to traverse, most developers have the good sense to stay away from Day-Z size maps, but rather that it is too big to fill with worthwhile and intelligent content. However, there is a hidden benefit in this, for maps of these sizes do wonders for feeding the inner adventurous spirit within some gamers. There are those who love uncovering what lay behind the next hill, even when the answer isn't that interesting, and oversized 'checklist open worlds' can provide to that sensation in spades.

Games like Mad Max and Days Gone shaped themselves around the premise of a 'road trip' with having the character cover great distances in pursuit of their ultimate goal. That can be hard to represent for developers who are concerned with creating a fully immersive and believable world, but when they are merely creating chunks of playspace or a pretty facade, it's easier to ramp up these huge distances and have the player truly experience that elongated journey. Perhaps that's enough to establish some emotional resonance with the plight of the protagonist if handled correctly.

Ultimately, there isn't much to love about 'Checklist open worlds', but that doesn't mean I think the practise is worthless and should be eradicated from the industry. It is an unfortunate fact that some Devs are straddled with making an Open world when they honestly don't have the resources or know how to pull it off, but the 'checklist formula' allows for such games to be formed into something that isn't a total mess. It may not be particularly inspired, but it sure is functional.