So I beat Diablo IV

 

So a while back I just randomly got into playing through the Diablo games on a whim and was kinda of seeing where it was leading me- finding out if ARPGs were going to become my new thing. As it turns out the grind curve of those games tends to start feeling like Mobile games after a while, where you're dedicating far too much time to move forward a single decimal point, and thus I never quite reach the pinnacle in any of these titles- both 2 and 3 were still fun times for what they were and I was interested to try 4 one day. Well as it turns out that one day was actually a few weeks ago and I've been hanging around with Diablo IV (courtesy of Gamepass) and seeing where that journey ends up leading me. And so far I think I've spent the most time grinding this one out yet- so what does that mean for my experience?

Well first off I have to admit that from a gameplay standpoint I certainly like building my character in Diablo IV a lot more than I did for 2 and even for 3- although that might be because I actually have an idea of how to build one of these characters now and so I knew how to play- as opposed to back in Diablo III where I was playing it by ear until everything clicked late game. But all that being said I have to extol how much fun I had with itemisation, getting crazy powers from my Unique helmet which turned my meteor attack into an absolute rain of splash damage, or melting my way through pretty much everything in the game with tri-flamethrower beams courtesy of an aspect that I've been shopping around into every new armour set I cook up. I'm really eating well of the labours of Diablo IV's latest patch being all around fixing the apparently weak itemisation of the launch version.

But those are only ever the juicy addendums to my Diablo journeys- they all start with delves into the inner workings of the narrative and seeing what the team have been cooking up in creating, within the devs own words, 'the darkest adventure since Diablo II'. So having played Diablo 2 I would probably say that whilst this doesn't quite delve into those realms of darkly fantastical despair- it does feel more like a continuation of that world than Diablo III did. There's less babbling about how you're some sort of deific chosen one destined to bat back the gods in a blink of an eye, and more harrowing journeys of loss and mourning in a world that, truth be told, doesn't really seem worth saving. I mean you get mobbed by a thousand demons on your way to get milk from the next village over- at that point I'd say the world's a wash!

Ah yes, because of course Diablo IV is the first game in the series to bring in an open world for you to explore between adventures and with that comes a certain degree of cohesiveness to the world layout to absorb. Something does have to be said for the way that grinding can be done across different environments instead of along the same levels of the original three games- but apart from that the open world is largely perfunctory. The promise of dozens of dungeons strewn across the world loses it's lustre once you learn that most of those dungeons are built using three or four tilesets with three or four end bosses to pick between. Still, nothing is lost in the experience of the open world aside from a supposed sense of 'intimacy' with your close vendors but to be honest- I always found that a bit ham-fisted in previous games. Particularly 3- those guys never shut up.

Diablo IV drags Lilith into the forefront as the daughter of Hatred (literally the Prime Evil of Hatred; Mephisto) and Mother of Sanctuary, the world within which the game is set, and does an absolutely abysmal job telling the rather important story of her and Inarius. (The father of Sanctuary, also an angel)

I know the story had technically already been touched on in documents strewn about previous games, but this was the first to feature both characters as supposedly core parts of the plot and we don't even have the history of why these two are destined to war played out? Even as a mere refresher? Inarius is laughably absent from the story, and Lilith is played more as a sympathetic character than some supremely terrifying and unknowable evil like the Prime Evils were usually made out to be. Which I guess fits her position as a supposed tyrannical 'saviour'.

Our cast of co-stars are actually fine this time around, if slightly close to the Diablo 3 cast. Maybe I like these guys more because they all undergo fittingly horrific hardships to be considered worthy of being a Diablo cast member. We even have a stand in for Leah in the form of Neyrelle- although Ney feels a lot more like a kid trying to survive in a grim world gone evil rather than Leah who sort of felt like a princess from a storybook. My only real complaint for this cast is the same reason why I took to dubbing them all 'the toddler squad' by the final few acts- they all can't keep themselves out of trouble when out of your sight. I am serious- every member of the cast undergoes some horrific mutilation or kidnapping in moments when they leave your direct supervision for literally 10 seconds. Every single cast mate. Aside from Lorath but we have DLC coming up- plenty of time for him to accidentally trip into a crocodile's open mouth whilst we're hitching our mounts, or something.

Diablo feels pretty fluid and fun in it's latest iteration, and mowing down even the smallest mobs tickles the right dopamine channels you need in a game about killing dozens of hoards. It's a refined point, sharpened over a series of revisions, and that's what makes it so effective. I would say there's a bit of a 'too easy' problem in the early game. The first two world tiers make it nearly impossible to lose unless you're literally trying to die and the latter two world tiers only really manage to make a challenge by throwing you against enemies that hopelessly outlevel you. The major challenges of each season are literally bosses that rank 100 levels above the max and exist as endurance challenges- I don't really consider that 'great endgame boss' material. Plus, the 'time to kill' situation is pretty wild. You are literally alive or you're dead- nothing inbetween. It can get frustrating.

In the end as someone who isn't exactly a giant fan of this genre of games, in style or substance, Diablo IV had everything I wanted for a casual experience and enough to hook me in to play a lot more than I originally wanted to. Would I call it better than previous games? Honestly it's offerings are so thematically and tacitly distinct that I'd have to take the easy way out and call it a 'matter of taste'. Certainly if you want the most polished feeling ARPG on the market right now, you're in the right place- at least until the beta for Path of Exile 2 launches- which actually does look pretty fire- I wonder if Diablo will have the backbone to stand up to PoE2 when the time comes...

The Balance game

 Losing the will to grind

Games with online requirements

 You've been disconnected

The interconnectivity of the world through the power of online is a magical and wonderful tool that has revolutionised the way we live, how our societies intermingle and connect; and how much bizarrely themed Anime we can watch directly from Japan. (I saw one about a school full of gambling addicts! Them Anime makers get real crazy sometimes.) But for all of it's positives, there are some rather big negatives. Not many intrinsic negatives, mind, more circumstantial negatives that have popped up as the world has become more familiar and acclimatised to what the Internet provides us. Exploitation, scams, the very concept of the Metaverse and the addiction to the idea of being hooked to the 'forever online' pipeline and dragging everyone along for the ride.

Look, I know that fundamentally there are going to be games out there that require online connections in order to run; that's just the nature of how certain genres of games have come to be. MMOs, for example, can't exactly bring it's players into a cohesive shared online world if those players aren't sending up-to-date data packets of everything they're doing to the host server; therefore a constant connection is kind of a necessity. Same with competitive multiplayer games and pretty much anything that takes advantage of the fundamental functionality of games to provide a unique online-style of experience to it's player base. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, it's just the way that things are. But then there are the games that make you scratch your head and wonder.

Such as EA's Sim City. Do you remember when that abomination landed? A city builder game which necessitated an internet connection at all times for a game that largely consists of solitary city planning and late-game infrastructure troubleshooting? Why- so that some minor online gimmick of 'virtual player visitors' could be enabled? No, the real reason was obviously so that this could serve as a kind of hands-on DRM (Digital Rights Management) to ensure that the copies of the game that were being played were legitimate, which is the excuse for a lot of 'Always Online' systems around this time. Of course, not everyone has the kind of constantly secure internet, or even the bandwidth, to facilitate that kind of imposition; and thus the system, once said to be integral to the foundation of the game, was neatly exorcised in an evening. Too late though, the reputation of the franchise was forever tarnished and within a few years Cities: Skylines dropped to totally steal that entire market away from EA whilst they slept. Couldn't have happened to nicer guys.

These days it's a lot rarer to see always online systems. Or at least, it's typically not socially acceptable for a game to potentially drop it's players if they ever disconnect from some theoretical server floating in the company farm. And when such a game does exist, the backlash is loud and unrelenting. Just this year Redfall got spat at for requiring such a connection for a game that, whilst it offered 4 player co-op, fully allowed it's players to engage in an offline single player mode as well. Once again, the developers said it was essential to the heart of the game, only to figure out that there was apparently an off switch, it would just need some time to code in. (Too bad everyone will be done playing the game after one full day, because it wasn't very good.) Think that's the measure? Oh, you ain't heard nothing.

Doom Eternal is a game with Online Only requirements; did you know that? Not to the extent where you'll be kicked out of a single player campaign match for losing connection, but enough that dropping will force you into the menu to inform you of that misfortune. And why? Honestly I haven't the slightest clue. I think it may have something to do with this online persistent levelling functionality that is shared through the account like some sort of free battlepass- but why does that mean it needs to encroach on, and thus interrupt, my offline gaming? The very heart of Doom Eternal is it's single player campaign, and that the team thought it totally fine to potential sabotage the sanctity of that system with online gibberish is galling to say the least.

Elden Ring is another recent game with frustrating online components, but here it makes a lot more sense. Souls games have been messing around with online competitive and cooperative side features for as long as the genre has been fully formed. But in order to maintain that drop-in invasion style of game Elden Ring demands you log into their servers upon the start and remain logged in forever more. Should you drop that means you are kicked back to the main menu and you have to load in from scratch- the one thing worse than actually dying. Playing offline needs you to load into the game fresh from the start detailing you don't want to engage, and one of the routes to a major boss requires the invasion of three other players, forcing online play, and thus online requirements, upon you.

And then there's old faithful, Diablo 4. The latest in the Diablo franchise and the first to offer no form of offline character creation whatsoever. Here the excuse is more ephemeral as Offline characters used to be a key part of the Diablo adventure for those that wanted nothing to do with leaderboards or seasons or any of that stuff. Now, however, it's almost as though Blizzard live in constant fear of their players cheating and thus need to be watching them twenty four seven- they're willing to risk the smoothness of gameplay to keep their servers hooked to people's systems, in such a manner that has cost high performance players their hardcore characters. Punishing players is one thing, killing them in a loading screen because the severs are feeling slow today is another altogether.

In an ideal world we'd all boast fantastically consistent internet connections that allow us to link wherever we need for however long- but we're far from that world. Some of us can't manage internet connections like that, can't afford to, or plain just don't want to. The clumsiness of Always Online requirements seems to consistently undermine the potential utilities and more often than not end up riling the fanbase into a frenzy. So why are we still doing this? I think it's one of those pendulum swing issues, that the industry is trying to normalise but the world just isn't as built-up as it looks like on a map. Maybe in the days when the Internet truly is as ubiquitous as we think it is, such concepts can be snuck under the radar until it becomes a way of life. For now, however, I think most of us just want to play a game and not worry about what our modem is up to.

Diablo 4; hairs from release

 Return of the devil?

Perhaps it was Destiny that first secured the idea in the collective consciousness of the advertising world that an 'Open Beta' served best as an advertising campaign rather than an actual testing of an online title's servers. I mean sure, I'll bet to some degree the Betas of that time put strain on the Bungie Servers which helped them guess how those same systems would stand up to a full launch- but there's plenty of services available that can test that exact same thing without resorting to the public. What an Open Beta really is, when we break it down, is a free trial to test out the game before launch but with a timer attached to it, thus incited that all-important FOMO encouraging the industry to pay it more attention than it otherwise would or should have. The Destiny Beta was a success for it's time, becoming something of a landmark event that united everyone with it's freshness for a new property that looked great and played better- so thin was the 'server test' veneer, that Bungie even did a special sneak preview review of the second world space, the moon, during the final day to really blow everyone away at the same moment.

Of course, then spawned the era of 'open betas' for every game that could feasibly get away with it, which of cause led to over-saturation and now I don't think these events are quite as special and platform unifying as they once were. Perhaps the death knell in my eyes was the beta for 'Homefront: Revolution'; a godawful shooter with even worse online functionality that decided, insanely, to present it's ugliness proudly out to the world and gawked when that world thoroughly rejected them. Honestly, I tried my hardest to try and find anything of value out of that game and all I saw was a total mess, which would go on to pretty much represent the full release of 'Homefront: Revolution' and kill the illusion of the 'magic' behind the 'play an upcoming game for free' marketing ploy. I think some companies missed the tongue in cheek and thought this was actually meant to be a public showcasing of a Beta Build game. It's not. That would be ridiculous.

Such was my disillusionment that I don't partake in these events nearly ever when I see a new one pop up, now I merely watch from the sidelines as these events flare up and take a mild interest in hearing about the general public sentiment of how they was received and how that might effect the final product. (Honestly, the effect is always negligible.) But then there comes Diablo 4. I've always been morbidly fascinated with the legendary Diablo franchise, but I've never bitten the bullet to actually play through one beyond some preliminary taps at Diablo 3 throughout the years. 4, however, appeals to me in that primal, near subliminal way that a fresh game can whisper sweet seductive nothings when you least suspect it. I love the look of the world, the visceral nature of the blood splatter, the grimly gothic design sensibilities, the appealing pop of the magical abilities. Truly the game rang in tandem with some cave-man part of my brain.

Diablo, thus, got my attention when they decided to host a public beta not exclusive to those who pre-ordered the game like nearly all modern 'betas' tend to be. (Further hinting at their true status as 'early play' marketing tactics.) Although, I guess to say 'decided' would be a bit of a misnomer. In truth, these betas serve more as a plea from Blizzard to the general public to put some trust back in them after the years of negative press coverage, the abuse allegations, the awful CEO's antics, and most pertinently, the apocalyptic hell-hole of greed called 'Diablo Immortal'. The mobile port which everyone said was going to be a soulless phlegm ball from hell, Blizzard swore that it wouldn't be upon their honour, and then the game turned out to be exactly what everyone feared and, if possible, somewhat worse. The Diablo 4 marketing path has been more of an apology tour since then.

Diablo 4 has been similarly 'mask off' with it's 'server slam beta' which tasks it's users with speed-gaming it's systems in the race for level 20 and then murdering a periodically spawned world boss in the brief beta window in return for carried over prizes to the main game. A suitable enough incentive for anyone to pick up the job and try their hand at delving into the bittermost depths of hell- or at least as far down that path as they can get in the provided open world space of the game's first act- a giant snowy tundra brimming with small quests, randomly spawning loot events and expansive optional dungeons to delve through. Honestly, you can really see the absolute step upwards in sheer scale compared to what Diablo 3 was working with a decade ago.

I think what constantly surprises me is just the level of visual detail that was gone into a world that is designed to be viewed isometrically. Muddy tread paths look soaked in grimey water, clumps of snow glisten and splatter with blood and the character models look absolutely incredible up close. Even though you'll only ever see your hero from up top in gameplay, just tapping into your inventory reveals a model good enough for up-close cutscenes, which the game will then present in it's decently cinematic main story cutscenes rife with camera changes, quality animation work and a respectable amount of effort sunk into every step of the rendering. Blizzard went above and beyond in the presentation department and it shows.

And the gameplay- it's solid so far. With your simple attacks, specials tied to mana and balls of health exactly where you would expect them and playing exactly how you'd expect them to. Diablo 4 meets the very definition of the APRG genre so far with nothing really wild to add to the formula in it's moment to moment, at least not by the early hours. Even as someone only lightly invested in this style of game and playing on a Tier 2 difficulty realm, I didn't really have to think about differing types of enemies and how to counteract their abilities until it came to bosses; whom were both admittedly a little more interesting. The Main narrative boss was a creative puzzle of dodges and weaves with focus damage opportunities and the world boss was... so long. She only spawned in a few times and I never had the opportunity to beat her, but god that boss bar barely seemed to move throughout her entire 15 minute battle time. Both times all 12 of us threw the everloving daylights at her and only got her down to the final quarter of health before she despawned. (Then again, she was scaled five levels above the max level limit for the beta...)

Diablo 4 seems to be going for the AAA presentation of a polished ARPG game, instead of anything wild and interesting to win back the crown of 'king ARPG' from Path of Exile. Right now, Diablo 4 has everything it needs to welcome people back to this genre who've felt starved since the Diablo 3 support started to dry up, but in the face of other new releases like 'Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom', I can't help but get the sense that the game feels a little... safe. Maybe there are surprises and tricks waiting up the sleeve of the game as it goes on (I haven't even experienced the horse gameplay yet) but as of so far  Diablo 4's greatest selling point is it's visuals- which are unmatched in this genre. Is that enough to get me to buy the game? Not at release price, I can tell you that much...

So Diablo IV is still a thing... I think...

 By three they come

Demonic hoards are coming home, apparently, as times which are broken can apparently be one again. That's right, aside from news of Blizzard chasing past glories with the 'Diablo 2 Resurrected' game, they've also tasked themselves with posting the odd update on that Diablo IV project that they've apparently been working on. Remember that? The thing they announced two years ago, totally not as a distraction tactic from the great many claims of freedom of speech censorship and Chinese dictatorial cronyism. Not even a little bit. Blizzard just felt like sharing details of this game that is so not finished that they couldn't even give a rough release window- but hey: it has horses! To be completely fair, Blizzard have always had a reputation for announcing games obscenely early to the point where they'll enter your lexicon as just as an established entity before you've so much as seen a gameplay trailer. (Just look at Overwatch) In fact, we should count our lucky stars that Blizzard went out of their way to at least cobble together a demo. Which they then only let people at the event play... yeah, we're really lucky alright...

But hey, It's been two years and I can't be bothered to rag on Blizzard anymore, I just really want to play their stupid ARPG sometime before the heat death of the universe. (That would be nice, wouldn't it) Even in the year and a half since that reveal I've actually familiarized myself a lot more with this sort of genre and really come to roots with what it is that makes these sorts of games special; therefore I've actually gotten myself all excited for Diablo IV over nothing because, amazingly, we've still got no release date! The Devs did, however, recognise that they're literally playing hard to get to an agonising degree and thus deigned to offer us a consolation prize of an actual video update revealing their first addition to the class roster. (Which, assuming we're getting one of these every 1.5 years, means that by 2023 we might actually have the vanilla line-up all done!) So that's what I'm going to talk about.

And, lo and behold, the first new class is the Rogue. Seriously. Okay, I know that I'm no Diablo lore nut and there actually all this lore about the 'Sisterhood of the Sightless Eye' made up of Rogues and that organisation was almost destroyed after the events of Diablo II. (After a little corruption here and the annihilation of 9/10ths of the population there.) But from a veteran of every single type of fantasy world humanely imaginably, just hearing the blunt name 'Rogue' is about as mundane as one could imagine. No 'Assassin' or 'Nightblade' or 'Ranger' or 'Cipher'. Just a normal ol', bog standard, plain as you like, garden variety, cookie cutter, paint by numbers, dime a dozen, run of the mill, white bread, milk toast, two a penny, roguish rogue. Forgive me if I don't lose my mind with excitement. And yet, damn if they didn't make her look cool anyway.

I mean it's an ARPG, they'd be crucified without some sort of ranged class; but a range/melee class promises the sort of versatility you don't always see out of this genre, and I must admit I like it. (I tend to play the rogue-like class a lot. So this character was right up my alley) Through the extended discussion there was actually a lot of talk about customisation in regards to building characters, which I think will really appeal to those who thought Diablo III wasn't what they wanted. Again, no Diablo expert here, but from what I've heard people tended to find a lot of the characters to be linear in their abilities and the real customisation to come from gear builds. In fact, the team themselves even built in a secondary levelling system a few years into the game's life cycle to supplement it, thus it's good to hear the team is at least trying not to make the same mistake twice.

From a completely arbitrary and shallow angle, I will say that once again I simply loved the visual design in the new gameplay we saw. There's a real flashiness to this class in the way that they move and dance around the map from which you see the influences of the original game. (Kind of odd how they're trying to invoke the spirit of the old games when there's literally a remake coming out this year. You'd think that'd give you room to change things up, but I digress.) The coolest move, without doubt, is the dismount from the horse which literally shows the Rogue launching in the air as she showers a rain of arrows on everyone in front of her. I really appreciate how the action looks to borrow a lot of the kinetic impact that you expect out of modern titles without showering them in sparks, colourful flashes and all the other trappings that come with modern effects. That might seem like odd praise, given that these are professionals, but remember it's been a hot minute since they made a Diablo game, I wouldn't be surprised if they missed a step or two. But for the time being I, at least, am satisfied. (I know some fans still aren't fans of the enemy highlights, but I don't mind too much.)

Some of the talk I picked up in their in-depth dive really did surprise me, for the depth that seems to be dedicated towards the levelling process. I mean, again I've only played the very beginning of Diablo 3; but I'm surprised at this whole 'three pathways' they're teasing. Essentially, there are these three different styles unique to each class that the player can choose to commit themselves to in the late stages of progression, seemingly at the cost of losing access to the others. Fair enough, that's how a lot of level-up trees work. What really surprised me, however, was the way they seemed to imply that choosing these paths also meant committing to route-specific quests across the open world; as if going through the process of learning the style. It's a surprisingly immersive and narrative driven approach to level development, if I interpreted their comments correctly, and I'm oh so curious to see how significant of an effect this will have on multiple different characters. Will everyone feel different in their journey as well as their playstyle? I doubt it, but the question's been raised. 

And finally there was the talk of PVP, which is something I've never been too big a fan of but it's here anyway I guess. For this mode it seems that the Devs have gone the route that a lot of multiplayer titles are doing nowadays and creating a zone for limitless PVP. (Although I think they'll still be opportunities elsewhere) Just like the Dark zone from The Division, Cyrodiil from ESO and (deep-cut here) the wilderness from Runescape. And, similar to The Division and The Imperial City in ESO, there'll be a unique currency and reward systems in this PVP zone in order to encourage players to go there and get duelling. I thought it was especially brutal for the team to reveal that this raw currency can be dropped and looted from by other players, and can only be refined through an event that invites everyone to your location. Brutal, but fitting given the series. Somewhere along the line I wonder how balancing factors into all of this, and whether or not the team stopped to consider exactly which armour sets will be unique to this optional challenge. Will they exclusively be sets to buff PVP play, or will there be some really interesting things to entice the likes of me over? But heck,  I'll launch myself at the throats of my friends for an armour set as long as it looks cool, so maybe don't look to my example.

Gear gathering and demon slaying is such a simple premise and yet we know from so many attempts at mimicking this genre that it can go wrong so quickly. (Anthem) I've really tried my hand at a decent number of these titles over the years, but I've never had the pleasure of trying one that seems so mobile. (As in 'movement' not 'mobile phone'.) You can tell that this is the sort of game that Blizzard wants to be their platform, and I not entirely sure if that's going to pan out in the same sense as Diablo 3 (With seasons of randomised content and loot) or evolve into something more akin to what Path of Exile is doing; because the latter really does seem like Blizzard's MO. Personally I'm hoping they keep things simple and just deliver a solid ARPG that reminds fans why Diablo made them fall in love all those years ago; and from everything I've seen so far, and baring in mind that I'm not technically a fan myself, I'm decently hopeful.

Radio silence over at Blizzard this year

 So is Blizzcon going to be attended by tumbleweeds this year?

You know what I hate? Promises. I've always found people to be at their most pathetic when trying to curry favour through empty assertation about the certainty of the future and/or their abilities to cement it. It seems whenever Ii happens, the only result can be inevitable steaming-hot disappointment, seemingly always. And of course there's no better example for that then when it comes to companies promising the world to their consumers. I could list examples, and for another topic I may just do so, but today there's only one company who has riled me up and it's good ol' Blizzard. Remember them? They remember you, and that's why for the last two years they've been living off of your nostalgia in a desperate attempt to not lose face among the gaming community, likely a little unsure as to how 'too big to fail' their franchises are. 

What feels like a life time ago, Blizzard managed to rile up some controversy through transparently making moves against real political issues, something which anyone should have told them is absolutely not their world to interact with. We live in worlds of fantasy and make-believe, and sure, they may be filled with visions and whispers of our lives and the world as we see it, but at the end of the day it's all just immaterial. Which is why there are a thousand better ways to handle a potential political incident when it's shoved into you lap, like simply ignoring it, rather than trying to do self-censorship in as authoritarian a manner as you can muster. Act in the latter manner, and you'll have convinced others that you have some sort of horse in this way, which Blizzard sort of did, but before this turns into the gaming equivalent of Steel Ball Run, let me move onto how Blizzard acted in the wake of these issues (I've covered them extensively anyway)

Blizzard were clearly up against it. They had dug a hole so deep for themselves that actual politicians were lining up to bury them in it, and the gaming public, who's goodwill had made them as a company oh-so-long-ago, were leading the mobs. Which is likely why a lot of people were immediately sceptical when they suddenly held their annual Blizz-con event and everyones favourite games were there. They had Diablo and Overwatch and maybe even a little bit of Warcraft. Hah, what a crazy coincidence, right? In the same year that they happened to piss off everyone they were incidentally making sequels to all the games that they liked. Isn't that just the darndest thing... Of course, in the year since then the scepticism has really boiled and right now, with the news that both Overwatch and Diablo aren't making it to us at all this entire year, I think it's fair to say that we've been played.

Now to be the utmost fair, Diablo IV was announced back with the stipulation that it was early in development. Very early in fact. So early, that one guy was noted as saying that the game itself could be years away from launch. (Guess they were right) Still, it makes one wonder how they managed to have a full CGI reveal trailer alongside a gameplay teaser trailer lined up for the event. It's just kinda makes me think; what the heck are you guys even teasing? You haven't even finished coming up with all that's going to be in the game, nor the systems that'll run it, how can you tease that? It's such an old-school way of marketing your game that more and more is suffering backlash from fans. People are starting to put stock into marketing materials, much more than they really should, and when the product deviates from that original in any single way, they get out the pitchforks and scream "shenanigans!" At sometime these studios need to acknowledge that and shift the way they market, cause it's only causing them undue stress.

The one that really gets to me, however, is Overwatch 2. We've heard diddly about Overwatch 2 for two whole years now, and it's getting to the point where some are even wondering if it's still a real thing that's being made. Overwatch 2 was supposed to be the jumping off point from Overwatch, where the team would actually take that solid basis and maybe even squeeze a narrative out of it. Because for all of it's 'design' and overwhelming 'world building'; there's literally never been a story for Overwatch and that seems exceedingly stupid the more the franchise languishes. (How are communities supposed to thrive on fan speculation alone?) I was excited for narrative cohesion to enter this universe in even the most basic manner. Sure it seemed to be shaping up as little more than one-off missions for characters, but that's still better than nothing. But nothing is exactly what we got, for one year going on two now. Meanwhile the Overwatch base game has felt like it's been in limbo too, save for a few new characters. What is even happening with this franchise anymore?

Bethesda, a few years back, announced a shift to how they wanted to handle marketing, in that they wanted to do full game reveals just months before release. At the time I remember gawking at the proposition, thinking it insane to try and condense an entire marketing cycle into 4 or 5 months, but they did it with the lukewarm Fallout 4. And then again with the, dead shortly after arrival, Fallout 76. So perhaps it hasn't been the most successful program they've ever done, but it did contain glimmers of promise. There was no years of lamentable waiting, no cannibalising of fan goodwill in order to keep folk excited for one more year. No external fan pressure to hit the heavy goals set before the release date. It was all just there for people to see, the only hurdle Bethesda had to get over from there was actually making a goodgame. (But babysteps, I guess) The more self-made messes that this industry keeps slipping itself up on, the more I'm beginning to think that Bethesda had the right of things, because imagination will always trump whatever human hands can make, so give that imagination as little time to fester as possible and you'll have an easier time managing expectations.

And I think that 'managing expectations' is the secret formula that everyone should be shooting for, because we've literally seen the golden child of the industry dissolved into an industry punching bag over this sort of issue. Then again, of course, many of these studios can't simply stay quiet about their project until a few months before launch, because they need fan reaction for a plethora of reasons. Sometimes it's in order to gauge the market for their project and justify investments, sometimes to build anticipation and heighten potential profits, sometimes just to remind everyone that they still exist and haven't gone bankrupt in the void. That's likely why Bethesda themselves broke their rules to issue two consecutive teaser trailers for games we've not seen hide nor hair of for years. So there's obviously a balance to be struck here, although I'd argue literally showing off gameplay for a title that was seemingly in pre-alpha at the time, certainly isn't it.

I don't like Blizzard, although that's because I was born into the gaming world between their initial rise to stardom and their resurgence, so I'm lucky enough not to have that nostalgic tie. But be that as it may, I still like the look of some of the games they've made and thus was stupid enough to buy into the hype even in just that small way. Right now, we're looking at Overwatch 2 (which I'm still 80% sure is vapourware) and Diablo 4 (Which has a high bar to live up to) both going through another year of marketing silence and it's slowly driving me away. I mean is there even going to be a market for these games once they launch considering all the stiff competition? You'd think they obviously would, but Star Citizen serves as prime example that no idea is future proof, so overpromising too early can really bite you down the line. See all you hopefuls in 2022, I guess.

Activision are the good guys now?

Misdirection or revelation?

How are these guys still in the news? I mean with all the floundering and flubbing that has been going on of late you'd think that it would behoove Activision/Blizzard to do everyone a favour and shut up, yet here we are on the cusp of the holiday season positively resplendent with bad PR leaking out of these studios. I suppose one could call this a success if they are subscribers into the belief that all press is good press, but where I'm watching this just looks like an unmitigated relations fire that the heads keep throwing fuel into. (Eventually someone's got to tell them how that's not the way you put out an inferno.)

Optimists might have hoped that Blizzcon would be the turning point in perception, but even that's managed to garner poor press ever since ol' J. Allen Brack dribbled out that poor excuse of a public apology. Even their flagship announcement: Diablo 4, was strewn with accusations of people claiming that it's 'the exact same game as Diablo 3'. (An accusation that holds weight until you delve into such basic investigative procedures as comparing a picture of the two games.) Their second big announcement, Overwatch 2, has been laboured with similar, much more justifiable, complaints; and now every single word that the Blizzard team says in regard to the future of these franchises is being chided and chastised by critics.

But today I'm not taking such a close look at the Blizzard half of the relationship, but over at the grittier other half; Activision. They've been having a rocky road recently but have ultimately earnt a victory with their newest release; Modern Warfare. People have praised the campaign for it's ability to slide from the dark and shocking to the action packed and goofy, the new large scale multiplayer modes that feature vehicles and seem primed to go up against Battlefield's dominance of large scale conflict, and the extensive weapon customization system which hearkens back to the glory days of weapon progression in Battlefield 3.What's more, all of this was achieved without some damnedable monetisation system ruining the progression of the game and tying everything down with lootboxes or season passes. People are optimistic that this could be the best Call of Duty since Modern Warfare 2 and that has the potential to reflect in the sales.

Of course, this change in direction from Activision wasn't born out of the good pureness of their hearts. The game was primed to the brim with lootboxes before release until the feature leaked during the beta periods. The resulting backlash and cancelled pre-orders prompted the team into talks and discussions behind closed doors where they made the decision to pull back on the heavy monetisation. (For now.) It is important to note, however, that this doesn't mean the game will be free of such systems for perpetuity. Game companies seem to have a mental block in their brain when it comes to defining what 'no microtransactions' means and seem to regularly suffer from short term memory failures whenever such a promise is made 'for ever'. Heck even 'Jedi Fallen order', the game that EA have funded as a test case to see if there's still a market for traditional games, allows for player's to pick up a pre-order exclusive skin for your companion droid if you drop down some early bucks. (Hmm... almost as though they're testing the waters to launch a skin store after release...)

 But Activision still want the public to be live that they've turned over a new leaf, and that is what prompted their decision to loudly remove the paywall between players and guns that had invaded the previous year's CoD game: Black Ops 4. For those that forgot, that was the game for which the development cycle was so rocky that the team had to scrap their plans for a campaign and lean into the Battle Royale content that was originally envisioned to be garnishing rather than the main course. (Which they then lied about during the reveal event.) For their credit, however, the change in direction turned out to be successful for a time.

You must remember, last year the only game anyone wanted to talk about was Fortnite, so for another Battle Royale to step into that field and do even moderately well was quite the accomplishment. Black ops 4 offered a whole new approach to the Battle Royale genre that felt grounded, realistic and was realized entirely in first person, offering a suitable alternative to Epic's number one. A budding community of folk began jumping on the first realistic Battle Royale game with decent controls (Sorry PUBG) and a seemingly perfect TTK. This may have blossomed into a actual rival for Fortnite given a chance, and the team seemed to leaning into this fate when they made such announcements like how Black ops 4 would be their 'most supported game ever!'

The dream started to burst, however, once Activision get ahead of itself in the monetisation fields. Those who remember the birth of overbearing microtransactions (Modern Warfare 3) were hit with a wave of nostalgia as they saw CoD selling red-dot-sights for a premium and special guns that were exclusive to the lootbox grind pool. Folk started to drop off from the Battle Royale mode (Which was the mode that Activision hoped would be their real money maker) and soon the team were left with the loyalist crowd who seemed content with the traditional team deathmatches. (And not spending money one BR cosmetics.) As such, it wasn't too much of a surprise that they ended up going back on their promise and cancelled Black Ops 4 support just before the release of Modern Warfare. (Just like they always do.)

Treyarch weren't happy with the sour note that things ended on, it seems, as they made a big song-and-dance about their revisions to progression in an update post lauded around the Internet gaming spheres. The changes are big and impressive, opening up premium content to people not willing to drop considerable extra cash towards the game and allowing for direct purchase for those that are. It's as though the team went down the laundry list of 'ways to do monetisation right' and did their best to tick off every single mark that they could, basking in the positive press that they earned for doing so. There's only one problem, it comes a year too late.

As I said, Modern Warfare has recently released and Black Ops 4 just dropped their ongoing support train, so why are we applauding Treyarch for this 'noble' but lazy, move? It's the exact same nonsense that everyone railed Activision for in regards to the year-long exclusivity of survival mode in Modern Warfare. Everyone knows that the life cycle of a Call of Duty game is shorter than a cheetah's childhood, so with that in mind, anything that company does after that period is automatically null and void. It's a desperate headline that looks good on paper but cost them nothing to implement, because all of their playerbase has already moved onto to the next game. Does this mean this cycle will continue on towards the next year? Only time will tell, but experience certainly paints a poor picture.

Diablo 4

Hell is coming

It's quite the thing to be a pariah, just ask Blizzard for these past few weeks. To have your every decision and action torn apart to it's base essence and revealed for what it is, it can make one supremely self conscious and weary. I can only imagine that was the atmosphere within the Blizzard offices when the decision was made for a 3 prong redemption arc to be held at Blizzcon with the desperate attempt to recoup just a fraction of their lost trust and respect. In some ways I hold some sympathy for them, for so long they were the gold standard to the PC audience and a company who always knew how to put their fans first, but then I remember the draconic 'regulation' practises that overwhelmed the Overwatch community (and likely other Blizzard games that I wasn't paying as close attention too) and remember that this backlash isn't as spontaneous as it appears, rather it has been cooking for a good while now.

In my blog on Overwatch, I forgot to mention the first step of Blizzard's redemption; when, man who lost the morning battle with his hair, J Allen Brack took the stage at the cusp of Blizzcon to apologize for his failure to handle recent events amicably. He told everyone that Blizzard was given the opportunity to provide a teachable moment, and that they had failed that challenge and were reaping the consequences. What followed was little more than canned PR talk so I couldn't be bothered to pay attention, but I will admit I was impressed that Blizzard's CEO had the courage to address the crowd like that. (Now if only he had something to actually say, then the speech would have been perfect!) Brack expressed how 'Actions speak louder than words' and then proceeded to point to Blizzcon as an example of those actions. (Brack, my man, you're the CEO of a gaming company. Making games is kind of expected from you. When we talk about 'actions speaking loudly' we tend to meaning going above and beyond simply developing products to assist your profitability.) I'm not sure if the man was just out-of-touch or has genuinely never made an apology before, either way, it was rough to watch.

Luckily the Developers that Brack had chained to their desks pulled through in cobbling together reveal trailers for Blizzard's current flagships; Overwatch 2 and Diablo 4. (Alternatively known as; 'Please forgive us!' and 'We're really sorry!') Still, Blizzard have yet to provide fans with anything resembling a release date on either of these two titles (and why would they, both were probably prematurely revealed) but they operated under the impression that reminding fans that these games exist would be enough to distract them from the abject truth that such titles are funded by China. (Interesting to note, but not at all surprising, 'Hong Kong' wasn't mentioned once during the festivities. Or rather not once outside of the Twitch chat, which was practically taken over by shouts of 'Free Hong Kong'.) But rather than judge Blizzard on their lack of social duty and responsibility, I've already done that in spades, I'm going to temporarily buy into their game and look at their second apology reveal; Diablo 4.

For those who don't remember the disaster that was Blizzcon 2018, you likely also won't remember the fervour around how Blizzard handled Diablo. That event was deprived of any and all announcements save for a single Diablo title which people had been buzzing about for weeks beforehand due to leaks. The throne of Diablo in the hearts of gamers had been supplanted ever since the botched release of Diablo 3, and fans were eager to see their favourite loot-crawler return to form. Things began to fall south, however, once a couple of Blizzard Devs took to the stage to announce that their next Diablo game wouldn't be the long-awaited Diablo 4, but rather a new title called; Diablo Immortal. "Huh?" Fans thought "That almost sounds like a live service... Which is strange because Diablo already kind-of is a live service. So what is this?". Unfortunately, their worst nightmares would be confirmed when it was revealed that Diablo Immortal would be a mobile exclusive. (NO!)

History has taught gamers, time and time again, that the only reason a series ever goes mobile is in order to bastardize the franchise and turn it into a microtransaction ridden cesspit. The mobile market reeks from the miasma of corporate avarice and tarnished ambition, such to the point that even the most inattentive gamer knows to keep far away from such storefronts. Thus, fans could only see it as a betrayal once Blizzard revealed their plans to pawn off the Diablo franchise down such avenues. We saw this reaction reflected in the raw disgust that those present displayed by such an announcement, like when one fan stood and asked "Is this an out-of-season April fools joke?", to which the Devs had no real response apart from awkwardly stating that "No, this is a real game." Some tried to make the best of the situation by asking if the game would at least be playable on PC, which the Devs had to laugh off by saying that it was mobile only. When people booed this choice, we got the infamous line "What? You guys don't have phones?"

The botched announcement sent ripples through the gaming community as people saw their heroes, Blizzard, selling out their talents and fandom in order to chase a quick buck. Reddit's erupted, hearts were broken, and certain games media alumni tried to find a way to make it the gamer's fault. (Predictably) Worst of all, people lost hope in the Diablo brand and decided to finally give themselves over the plethora of alternatives out there. (I'm partial to Path of Exiles, myself.) All of this meant that if Blizzard wanted to make any of their reputation back they would be forced to announce Diablo 4 next year, no matter how far along in development the game is. "That would fix things." They thought. "And then everyone will love Blizzard again. I mean, it's not like we'll find a way to cause an even bigger controversy within a year, right?" (I've never met Blizzard's PR team but I really feel for them right now.)

With all that fresh in our minds, I feel we are equipped to take a good long look at the trailer that Blizzard believe will right last year's wrongs. (And last month's wrongs, I guess.) Before that, however, mandatory disclaimer; I've never played a Diablo game through to completion before. They've never appealed to me on that base level that you really need for a time-eater experience like this. That being said, I've always been open to trying out some of Diablo and so I've kept a casual eye on how things have played out. However, lore-wise, I only know that basic of the basic. I can't even remember who Leah is. (I know she was in Diablo 3, but that's about it...) So bare that in mind all you Diablo nuts when I miss the bleedin' obvious.

The trailer starts with a brief flash through of the events we are about to watch, just like any modern Hollywood movie trailer, which immediately makes me despise the scum which put this together and acknowledge them as the talentless hacks they likely are. Oh, I understand it; it's a desperate ploy to hook an audience within that, all-important, first 5 seconds by wowing them with action and noise. The only problem is, all this practise does is bombard the viewer with fast-cuts and noise and coins them into the fact that your trailer has nothing worth while within, forcing you to resort to trickery to keep us watching. I may have spent far too much effort analyzing the first 5 seconds of this trailer, so I'll merely pray that the trailer maker's eardrums burst whilst sound mixing one day, and move on.

Nitpicking aside, I will admit that this Cinematic trailer is pretty atmospheric and does set the tone for a suitably disturbing entry into the new Diablo. This trailer opens up on a deserted town in the aftermath of some great catastrophe that resulted in the deaths of millions, (Lovely) as we venture down into the depths to join our 'heroes' of this trailer: a band of treasure hunters. Oh that's right, in a world wherein there is a physical manifestation of Hell that exists in the depths of the Earth, some idiots got together and thought it'd be smart to go spelunking for treasure. They probably deserve it once they all get rushed by an army of hellish ghouls and are forced into a corner in which they have to fight to the death.

The focus rests on a wounded scholar/priest who is being carried by a gruff looking man wearing an eyepatch who defiantly isn't Beric Dondarrion. (But I'm going to call him that anyway.) Our scholar is tasked with deciphering an ancient lock whilst the others hold off a horde of beasties and he discovers an interesting riddle. "By three they come" the wall gibberish apparently reads. This scholar then realizes that to open this here seal they need the blood of three willing participants. (And for some reason this doesn't immediately put him off. When is anything good ever sealed with blood magic?) The team leave Beric to hold off against the hoards and manage to open the door long enough to get in and shut him out. (No honor amongst thieves, I guess.)

Robin Hood's band of merry men then cuss about the fact that they aren't currently swimming in gold and decided to harass their scholar. Then we learn that this giant sacrifice altar isn't a long-empty treasure vault (Honestly, I have no idea why anyone would think it would be. You know, seeing as how the place was sealed with freakin' blood magic!) but rather a temple to 'her'. (Got to love the pronoun game.) Then we get to see that same fleeting shadow who gets work in every horror movie, swoop down and nick one our treasure hunters. (Ohh, spooky!) The other jumps in a panic to find himself face to face with Beric. (Awkward.)

Spooky stuff happens from here, none off which is particularly interesting, aside from Beric turning into one of the aliens from Prometheus and convincing our scholar lad to recite an ancient incarnation to summon miss 'her'. (Convincing which amounted to little more then "Come on, please!") The three treasure hunters are then suspended in mid air whilst their blood is called from their body to form various sacrilegious symbols in the air whilst our man reminds us that the seal requires three willing participants. (Huh, starting to think that the word 'willing' doesn't exactly apply to two of these lads considering the fact they are currently struggling for their lives. Maybe he got the translation wrong.)

What precedes is, admittedly, one of the coolest visuals I've seen in a very long time from a game trailer. The blood runes solidify into a substance resembling flesh and our lady-of-the-hour pushes through it in a manner that I can only assume was conceptualized to resemble birth in some way. (Actually, now I'm describing the scene it just sounds gross.) Now we see this lady in her full glory whilst the Prometheus alien announces her name to be 'Lilith'. That's right, first wife of the fallen angel, mother of all evil, the lady herself. The trailer ends with a shot of the mistress looking slightly miffed whilst wearing a cloak of congealed blood. (That's an image that's going to stay with me.)

So that's the cinematic trailer in a nut shell. Nothing to write home about but still kind of worth watching, if only for that shot of Lilith at the end. (Even though I'll admit that her design isn't as cool as I was expecting. She just has horns, big whoop.) Of course, Blizzard wouldn't be foolish enough to think they could sell a game on the strength of cinematics alone, (They made that mistake once, long ago) and so they threw down a gameplay trailer to sell the real meat-and-potato's about what one could expect from Diablo 4 and I must admit, I'm pleasantly surprised.

After Diablo Immortal's incredibly lackluster debut, with it's cartoony style and unimpressive visuals, I wasn't expecting anything truly pretty out of Diablo 4. Not to claim that Diablo 4 looks like the most gorgeous game in the world, because it doesn't, but I can certainly see the way that the visuals have stepped it up from the last entry, specifically with the fluidity of animations. I particularly like the way that we can see frost particulate seep into the floors after using ice magic (I wonder if the same will be true when we inevitably get to using blood magic later on.)

Keeping with the 'By Three they come' theme, Diablo 4 seems to be starting off by giving players 3 different classes to pick through off-the-bat. Firstly, and most generically, we have the Barbarian. (who looks like he's off to a cosplay competition as Conan) This is your standard melee master who's abilities are catered towards getting into the middle of the carnage and causing heavy damage. (A classic.) Next is the Sorceress, who's abilities revolve around your typical elemantalist. Fire and ice are her trade and I'm sure she'll have the most flashy finishers by the endgame. Finally is the Druid, who appears to boast the ability to metamorphose into a werewolf or bear at will. (As you do.) I'd imagine his skill tree will revolve around buffing and debuffing those around him whilst empowering his beast form, but that's mere conjecture at this point.

On the question of environments and diversity, Diablo remains as pretty as it's predecessors. I doubt we've seen even half the locales that the final game will offer and I'm still excited to get stuck into the windy crags and dark dungeons. For my part, however, the best realized location we have seen is that of snow. That is element so hard to bring to life in a way that is both convincing and aesthetic and from what I've seen the team seem to be heading the right direction in regards to art decisions. (The real test will be getting a look at how they've worked on things like Ice caves.)

The Diablo reveal did seem rather reticent on showing off any show-stopping bosses, however, which I've always seen as one of the trademark features of this kind of genre. Diablo is usually renowned for it's gruesome and grotesque beasties, (Although they're still yet to hold a candle to Dante's Inferno) so I wonder why the team opted out of showing them off here. The most we got was a look at an insectile monster, a necromancer-looking fellow, and a sort of bone dragon. Nothing that threatens to haunt my dreams. (Maybe they're saving the real nightmares for the lategame.)

Ultimately, Diablo 4 looks like the kind of game that would finally drag me, kicking and screaming, into the world of Diablo, had it not been for recent events. Honestly, the things I've seen look vaguely promising and like the kind of journey I would like to try my hand at. (Although it would probably be best on a portable platform. No not a phone, I mean the Switch!) Right now however, I can't justify endorsing anything that Blizzard have their hands on. It's a shame, but this one will likely be a miss for me. (Although, as this was a Blizzard announcement without a release date, we probably won't be seeing the game until 2025 anyway.)