Wasting my time

Burning my life.

The other day I mentioned how time is the most valuable resource that a player can have, which is why so many games go out of their way in order to convince a player that they are making some scant progress with theirs no matter what it is that they're commiting to. Only Dark Souls and it's ilk really have the true grit to pull out that last hour of gameplay from under the player's feet and tell them to deal with it without that decision being then lambasted as bad game design. (Probably because the general design of Soulslike games is so geared towards intrinsic progression as well as extrinsic, such that taking away all your 'Souls' is a minor inconvenience in the grand scheme of 'gitting gud') But there are certain games out there that not only care little for respecting your time, but go out of their way to spit on it with systems called 'Time gates'. Let's talk about that.

Explaining a time gate is best done by examining the kings of this particular crop: Mobile Games. Who out there has played a mobile game and reached that point where they can't progress any further because they have to wait for a timer? Maybe it's a a bar of energy that refills 1 unit every 15 minutes. Maybe it's the building process of your barrack upgrade that's going to take several hours, or maybe even several days, to complete. These are time gates. And typically a mobile game will design itself to slowly introduce these inconveniences in order to slowly wring the patience of their free-to-play players just as they were starting to get hooked on the gameplay loop in order to manipulate them into spending money to skip the wait. That is the most cynical version of time gating, but it's not the only iteration that gaming has ever known.

In fact, MMOs have themselves been very familiar with Time Gates for a decently long time now, with the concept typically existing in conjunction with daily or even weekly activity limits. Here the reasoning is a lot less nefarious, you may run a certain dungeon and only be given full rewards the first time a day you complete it, or the first time a week if it's a raid. Most of the time this exists in order to expand out the lifespan of that content in order to stretch out player retention. Grinding for gear drops is the draw of these higher difficulty content patches anyway; and as that loot tends to drop randomly, if you limit the amount of 'pulls' a player is privvy to, you automatically give them a reason to keep coming back day after day or week after week in order to pull the exact right piece of gear with the right stats that they want. By the time that player rolls their ideal drop, they'll have already established the pattern of logging into that MMO everyday.

In a very similar vein, I've noticed that APRGs have begun following a very similar trajectory even with their much smaller grasp of online functionality. Games like Diablo are built around the thirst and hunger for loot drops, as the very gameplay loop from the get-go revolves around hunting after that 1% increase to that one special attack you can do every minute and a half. Sometimes you'll have special gates that unlock during a season of the game, which in itself is tied to a system of FOMO offering unique drops that can only be found in this season through these special dungeons you can only run once in a given time. This way there's an aura of excitement and pressure built around the time gate, where the player is hopped up on the desire not to fail and risk the chance of getting these limited time items.

And to take a more contemporary and specific approach, who played Hogwarts Legacy? Without going into any spoilers, there comes a point within the narrative where the player earns themselves a crafting space within the Room of Requirement. The only hang-up? Crafting, growing, brewing, rearing and breeding is all tied to the limitations of a time gate that ticks along as you play the game, but in real time; alongside the ingredients it takes to make any of this stuff to begin with. The time gates are typically miniscule, and if you set everything off before you leave by the next time you have enough free time to peek back in all the relevant stations will most definitely have popped; but that it even exists like that in the first place is surprisingly out-of-character for any modern open world RPG not on mobile phones or handhelds.

 

Time gates work by tying the interest and investment of the player to a location and activity without any active engagement to that particular point, allowing that pressure point to fester and nag at the player long after they've moved onto other things or, in the case of mobile games, other activities entirely. They work by dragging the player into a relationship of expectation where they are responsible for keeping up with something, which means the game needs to be in a position to remind the player of their timers in order for the mechanic to be effective. Mobile games typically demand notification space to spam you the next day whilst you're sitting on the toilet, and other styles of game either place visual timers in heavily trafficked areas of the UI or have the important pressure point present in a key hub that the player is going to visit often.

But the question I keep asking myself whenever it comes to these systems is thus: Should they even exist? In a world of modern design sensibilities, what actual gameplay value is built for the player through time gating? Nothing. In fact, it's often seen as a lazy way to pad out content, such to the extent that some developers, such as Bioware when they made Anthem, try to hide their gate by creating menial fetch-quests to at least create the impression of meaningful gameplay. But it's so often just an act, or an illusion. Smoke and mirrors to expand the narrow constraints of what the developers could develop for the player to experience. But then again, that's not always the whole story, now is it? It can't always be that nefarious.

I think that the very currency that time gates play with, the free time of the player, turns what sounds like a very simple concept into a much more complex dilemma by it's very nature. Some games have very sensible reasons for not wanting their players to grind through all available content as quickly as possible, and it is true that activities which take someone longer to complete do inherently feel more valuable. But I think there's a very important scale that can be easily tipped with systems like these, and a game that wants to ethically respect it's players time needs to know how to be exceedingly sparing with their usage of time gating as a mechanic lest they cross the very thin line from enriching small systems to annoying everyone with grating meandering. 

Diablo Immortal has arrived

 It's Morbing time

Have you ever been introduced to something, a game, a movie, a person, and known instantly from the very first moment exactly where this relationship between you is going? I'm not talking a 'love at first sight' sort of thing, no I mean rather the opposite. I mean you know from the very first word that you two are going to bitterly clash until there's nothing but hatred and anger shared between the two of your totally incompatible personalities? How about a situation where you've felt that exact friction only to be proven completely and utterly false as something magical and special blossoms from fields you'd thought initially barren? Diablo Immortal falls into one of those two camps. Can you guess which one? Shocker, it's the "We knew it would be a disgrace to the brand and company and that is exactly what it is." What, do you guys at Blizzard not have integrity or something?

Diablo Immortal is an attempt by Blizzard to move their popular ARPG property, the Diablo series, onto the mobile market in order to cater to the plethora of mobile addicted players in China and Japan. If you want to be an optimist you could say that this is a Diablo game made for our Eastern Asian brothers that is trying to clue them in on something we already love over here, although you'd have to be almost reductively optimistic not to acknowledge the ways in which Blizzard is trying to actively exploit their platform of choice in order to squeeze bucks out of them. Because you see, despite the pedigree of the name attached to this product, despite the months of press junkets where the Diablo development team have promised that this game is going to rewrite what we expect from mobile games and has as big of a development team working on it as Diablo 3 and 4, (that's just sad if it's true) this is a blatant cash-grap, yo!

At least it's not a lazy one. I mean, the way in which they try and squeeze money out of everyone is lazy, tired and uninventive; but the actual quality of the mobile gameplay in question here is decent. It's not the world's best ARPG by any stretch of the imagination, and I don't find the early story to be any type of engaging or interesting, but the core ARPG experience of killing things is fun enough. Would I choose to play Immortal over Diablo 3? Not currently. But then I am early game, maybe the endgame is some super wild amazing feast of chaos and I just need to spend a couple of hundred real life currency on in order to boost my way to the great content. Oh, did I say money boosting? Yeah, this game has it's pay-to-win elements which is obscured behind distanced 'fake' currency and upgrade percentage chances that has the option to eat up premium currency. (That's how you sneak all the chance based money generating fun of Lootboxes without bringing the inherent backlash that Lootboxes come with. Class.)

What gets me is I thought Diablo Immortal had come out years ago and just faded from the public consciousness super quickly, but I guess Wyatt Cheng took the verbal tongue lashing he got at the Blizzcon reveal to heart and crawled under that rock he spawned from in order to wait out the backlash. Of course his absence and this game's gave the time for emotions to cool into a simmer, but it also gave us a chance to see more stolen snippets of Wyatt, such as that one screenshot of him presenting the pay-to-win equipment reinforcing systems to a board of, what I can only assume are, NetEase employees. Leaving no one in any doubt for ages exactly what this game was about and who it was being made for. People were sharpening their pitchforks for this game for a long time in advance and now they're ready to cut it to ribbons. Of course, Wyatt and his Diablo don't give two handshakes and a wink about the actual Blizzard and Diablo fans; they're out for them casuals, baby!

It's at the heart of the gameplay loop, a regular stream of unimposing simple combat encounters that inundate the player with levels and loot at a quick pace to get new casual players, unfamiliar to ARPGs, thinking "Wow, I'm progressing really quickly and having fun", so that as the later levels kick in and the experience starts to hit against that inevitable wall, these same players are incentivised and encouraged to stick around and push themselves up against that wall, typically a pay wall in this instance, in order to relive some of that power fantasy fun they had at the beginning of their playthrough. Gear becomes outpaced by hoards of trash mobs, forcing players to fall back on the monetised-to-hell upgrade systems or to grind side content during which they are assaulted with pop-ups trying to sell them extra completion loot for some real money fee. I completed the damn dungeon, why not just give me all the loot! It's not as though dungeon loot isn't going to depreciate within a level or two, why flog extra units on the side? Because it's a way to get the casual player to make that all-important first purchase, because once they're in the door it's oh so much easier to lock them into the loop of recurrent purchases. 

But there are other points of contention beyond the monetisation that has people dubious about Diablo Immortal, one of which being the mysterious and so-far unutilised files in the game folder that make explicit mention of facial recognition. This isn't just laymen misunderstanding of file naming conventions, either; the community manager responded to one concerned Tweet highlighting it with the excuse that their team was at one point looking to have the ingame character's facial expressions match the player's face but they scrapped the system for not meeting their quality standards. An alright explanation, but it rings a little odd, doesn't it? You wanted facial match-up tech in your uninspired casual mobile game? Seems like a strangely innovative tech angle totally not-in line with all the other middle-of-the-road and unambitious design decisions for the game. Also, what use is matched facial expression in an APRG? A zoomed-out top down game where you can't see your character's face? Surely they can't be talking about the character portrait, because that portrait can't even be customised to the player's liking beyond picking the class featured. I can't say for sure, but I think they're lying to our faces.

Of all of this I think the most galling knowledge is what I mentioned earlier; how the team working on this game is apparently 1:1 comparable to Diablo 4's in size, if not in ambition. Blizzard truly value this game as much as they do their core franchise, and you can bet your bottom dollar that renewed intrest in the mobile markets comes directly from the success of an actual innovative little free-to-play game called Genshin Impact. Another game which wears it's monetisation on it's sleeve but slathers so much content which can be enjoyed totally for free that people just let it slide. Can Diablo Immortal slither it's way into a similar position with it's content proposal? With some finesse, but after all the garish tactics being shoved in our face and artificial difficulty pseudo-paywalls being erected, I don't think this development team knows what 'Finesse' is. I wonder what the team at Diablo 4 are doing to differentiate that game from Immortal, or if the mandate is for all Blizzard games to follow this formula into the future in the blind hope that one strikes it big. I'm being alarmist, perhaps; but not unrealistically so, and that's the problem. 

Diablo Immortal presented itself as the game that would rewrite our preconceived notions on what a mobile game is, greedy, exploitative and low effort; when it ended up pretty much sliding into the perfect ballpark for two out of three of those tags. The problem is that the accolade for 'so good it's allowed to nickel and dime' was given out two years ago and Blizzard lacks the talent and passion to steal that podium position for the folks at MiHiYo. What we're left with is a decent stop-gap ARPG for people who can't afford a mainline Diablo game, but is it really any better than 'Path of Exile'? I guess if you have to play a CRPG on your phone, than Diablo Immortal and all of it's ugliness is your only choice; that's about as glowing of an endorsement as I can lay on Immortal's door. Let's hope this whole experience doesn't end up being prophetic towards the eventual state of Diablo 4, eh.  

Diablo 2 Ressurected

Stay awhile and listen

There come those times in the gaming marketing cycle where the entire fandom is utterly shocked by a completely unexpected product that shakes the very foundations of what we expected. (For better or for worse) Those inconceivably well kept secrets that are crafted with such excellence they become the very soul of discretion. And then, there are those obvious reveals: the ones were it's quite possibly the worst kept secret of it's day, and we're just sitting around playing pretend with the developers, waiting for them to announce the thing that we know they're doing, and they surely know that we know. 'Diablo 2: Resurrected' is the latter. Oh god, did we know this thing was on it's way. Almost like a grand apology for Diablo Immortal, it's been all anyone in the Diablo circles can talk about. And now it's announced and we're all supposed to clap our hands to our mouths and go "Nani? I did not expect that!" Give me a break. But at least it's real now and we can talk about it, there's that.

So the Blizzard team did a great job of pre-empting this with big-ups about how influential and important the first two Diablo games are, before then forgetting about the first one and only talking about the sequel. (Guess that one's not good enough for the ol' remake treatment.) But at least the team can agree with their audience that this was the golden age of the franchise. Since then ARPG's have evolved in a great many directions and facets, but it seems that the grandfather of the genre, Diablo, is not exactly leading the pack in today's age. Talk about the ARPGs of today and you'll hear mention of Torchlight (which I love) Van Helsing (Which puts me to sleep every time I play it, I don't know why) and Path of Exile. (Which I'd love to play seriously, if only it didn't run like a three-legged antelope because of my spotty internet) People have had their alternatives for the Diablo games, and not everyone has sought out these alternatives just because Diablo 3 is old. Some people say that 3 just lost a lot of magic of the genre, either in basic progression/ customisation or just the thematic world about them. Fans didn't feel that dread and disgust as they delved into the pits of damnation in their war against the Prime Evils. Not like they did with Diablo 2.

Thus with Diablo IV too far away for comfort, this impending 2 remake does actually seem like the ideal project in the meantime. Aided by the same team that were involved with the Tony Hawks and Crash Bandicoot 'remasters', Diablo 2 Resurrected aims to completely recreate the famed APRG, with the Lord of Destruction expansion, in a 60 FPS environment. And, similar to other Blizzard remasters, this game will be running ontop of the original game, allowing players to switch to the original style if they're feeling nostalgic. But what of this new style? Well that's where I think this idea is really going to sink or swim, because Diablo 2 is an aesthetic to a great many fans out there. A template of how to create a fallen demonic world. Presuming to amend that style, even with the intention of keeping everything true to the spirit of the original, is certainly playing with fire.

I'm sure it was pleasing, then, to hear the team reaffirm several times their position that nothing was to be added to the game, and everything to be an imitation. It's an important distinction to make, in the art department particularly, because where as this is called a 'remaster' within the studios, what we're looking at is an evolution from old-school 2D sprites to 3D renders; meaning that there's going to be some difference no matter how hard you try. Committing to ensure that none of those differences change the heart of the world is the right way to go if you're trying to make it through this job without having angry fan boys jump down your throat. Of course, that hasn't meant that they've completely neglected the wonders of the modern age. Dynamic lighting, a zoom function, 60 FPS all come to this new edition; but hopes are that these are more just quality of life enhancements. And for the most part I'll say they look fine.

What I'm less enthusiastic about, however, are the animations, although I understand why they are the way they are. You see, the original Diablo 2 ran at 24 FPS and decided all of it's important data off that; how long animations are, tick rate, everything that matters to a gameplay designer. And in the team's fervour to recreate Diablo 2 to the letter, they copied the animations to the exact same frame-rate and shape as the original. It's faithful, to be sure, but as someone who doesn't have the nostalgia-tinted glasses to fall back on; it does make combat look ludicrously stiff and I cannot imagine playing any melee-centric class for fear of dropping dead out of boredom. Animation talents have evolved a long way since 2000, and I like to think that's mostly been for the better; recreating the old style for the sake of being 'faithful' could be the wrong move in some instances, although I recognise that opinion places me staunchly in the minority.

What is still there, however, is the heart of an ARPG that launched a genre, and I really would love to get a glimpse of all the things that the imitators and iterators saw in this precursor. Again, I never played the original Diablo 2, (I was a child when it launched, meaning I'd only played Metal Gear Solid. No, I'm not exaggerating.) but I'm ever the one for rediscovering gaming history and thus I'm all aboard with this remake. The ARPG genre is one that I've only ever touched fleetingly, although I feel it has the chance to become my fresh obsession if I let it, in all the same ways that it has for other gaming genres. Yes, I very much blame Diablo 2 and it's kin for the 'looter Shooter' craze which grips certain sectors of modern game development, and if its recompense is to stage a grand return to the modern age in order to show these pretenders how it's done; I would be happy with that.

For me the biggest question is simply; can we trust Blizzard to deliver on what they promised? Let no one forget, afterall, about the Warcraft 3 Reforged debacle which demonstrated all the worst inclinations of the IP owners and left a sour mouth in many strategy gamer's mouths. In that they lied about the 'fully reshot cutscenes', (Diablo 2, conversely, has a much tamer promise of fully re-rendered scenes) they cannibalized their own community with creatively stifling stipulations; (Diablo 2 Resurrected has already announced Mod support; there's still plenty of room for similar rules to be set) and, worst of all, they overwrote the original Warcraft 3 in many people's game launchers, meaning that they had no choice of going back to that beloved original, they were stuck with this tainted successor. Blizzard have been clear to come out and say that Diablo 2 will not follow that same mistake, but it's already established a reputation of being nefarious on it's own, I wouldn't blame Diablo fans for proceeding with caution.

Lastly, my ire slightly ruffles when I look at the price; which is around £35 over here in Britain. In all honesty the game looks okay, but not exactly like a brand new AAA APRG, thus that price point seems to be straining with my goodwill. This isn't like a Bluepoint remake, this isn't Demon Souls we're looking at here, Diablo 2 Resurrected seems far more mundane in comparison and worthy of a price that reflects that. (£30 would be much more sensible to me.) At the end of the day, it's comforting to know that, rather than wait for the uncertainty which is Diablo IV, fans can coddle themselves with the familiar warmth of a game they already know is somewhat good, under the knowledge that there's absolutely no possible way that Blizzard and it's subsidiaries could possibly mess it up. Right?

One life mode

You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow.

One of the most appealing features of gaming in general, at least in my eyes, is the distinct lack of consequence that the whole thing incurs. Whereas performing an action, or not doing so, in the real world has very tangible consequences, (most of which are usually negative in my experience) in video games you are free from that struggle by way of metaphysical detachment. Even the most dedicated 'your choices matter' video game doesn't have any bearing on your actual life because at the end of the day you can just scrap everything and go back to the beginning, a boon that we don't share as boring mortals.

There are those games, however, that do not abide by the general wistful rules of gaming and seek to impart the cold permanence of mortality upon our one receptacle of relief. (Gee, thanks guys.) These are the sorts of games that I find myself coming back to time and time again, as they come to tear you up about what could have been. Or, they make death a lot more meaningful by requiring players to restart everything should they die. (I thought we transcend those kinds of games ever since 'The Legend of Zelda' and saving.) Today I want to look at the appeal of these types of games and why it is a gimmick that I don't see dying out anytime soon. (See what I did there? It was unintentional too!)

One of the most famous examples of the 'one life' genre of games would be the 2010 browser based pixel game known as 'One Chance'. Chances are that if you spent anytime consuming Internet culture around this time then you'll have heard of this little indie gem, partially due to the fact that it is readily available for anyone to play on flash hosting sites like 'Newgrounds'. But just to recap, 'One Chance' tells the story of a man who is a month away from the end of the world and has one chance to stop it. It is a highly narrative driven experience showing the breakdown of this individuals life as the world start to crumble and giving the player's a little ounce of choice along the way. Once players reach their conclusion, however, they'll have cottoned onto the fact that the title is double-edged. The protagonist has one chance to save the world and the player only has one chance to play the game. Whatever ending you finish with is yours forever and there is no 'do-overs' or second chances ever. (Unless you clear your cookie history, but let's not break the illusion of permanence.)

Minecraft and Terraria are two games built around an incredibly simple premise, you are alive in a hostile world and must do your best to survive and thrive. Minecraft very much takes this in a direction whereupon players will end up going on great builds and carving themselves out a home and Terraria more has player's amassing weaponry to battle various deadly and terrifying foes. What both these games have going for them is the fact that, despite being very long-form experiences, they both have a 'hardcore' tag when creating the world. What this little option means is that the second your avatar kicks the bucket, their world is immediately deleted and all your progress is wiped. Obviously, this has the effect of making player's a lot more careful in how they play the game, however, in an endless adventure like Minecraft and Terraria, it's more an act of delaying the inevitable. Some fans like the extra layer of tension that this piles on top of the gameplay, but few would suggest this sort of experience for the casual player.

Speaking of 'Hardcore modes', how about we take a look at the franchise that is often credited with coining the phrase, the Diablo games and it's ilk. These endless dungeon crawlers are built around the cyclical gameplay loop of fighting hoards of ever more powerful monsters and amassing ever more powerful loot sets and abilities. This perpetual grind is often intersected by droplets of story and big, climatic boss battles, but the main draw of this genre comes from the balance between the predictable acting in unpredictable ways. In this manner it isn't too often to find oneself being slayed by enemies that you know well because you failed to pay attention when you needed to, and if you turn on the 'hardcore mode' that practically all of these games have, then that will be the end of your journey. For a series as 'dark' as Diablo and it's imitators, this concept actually fits in rather nicely to their world of heresy, violence and death. I suppose then, the only question is whether or not the player is brave enough to put themselves through that trial.

Bethesda have dedicated a portion of their efforts to reviving some of the long dead games of yesteryear, most prominently the 'Wolfenstein' and 'Doom' Games. Both of their titles earned stellar new revivals in the modern age and reintroduced current FPS fans to games back when they were still largely hard as nails. With that it mind, it shouldn't be surprising that both games feature their very own  'one life mode' in 'Mein Leben' and 'Ultra Nightmare' respectively. Both of these difficulties are like the crème de la crème of hardcore challenges, as they encourage people to slog through a heavily narrative-driven story and set pieces both without dying once or even quitting out. That's right, there's not even any checkpoints in either gamemode to exploit, that's real hardcore!

The concept of one life difficulties largely stems from the pursuit of accolades from the gaming habit. It's a covenant with one's self to prove that you posses both the tenacity and skill to overcome everything in a modern game. Some look upon this as bringing back some of the habits and traditions of old-school gaming (before Saving was invented) but honestly, with the lengths to which gaming and game design has evolved since the traditional consoles, these challenges are often much more brutal. But by overcoming odds that are honestly insurmountable for a great many, like playing through a 20 hour FPS campaign without dying or taking breaks, one can bask in the glory of having achieved something honestly commendable. (Or something easily ridiculed. Depends on the eyes of the beholder, I guess.)

As a life long glutton you'd think that a concept like this would be right up my street, but honestly 'hardcore modes' might just be that bit too much even for me. I really do cherish the ability to go back and fix a mistake, depriving me of that opportunity does have the knock on effect of sucking a lot of fun out of games as they just become tense stressful nightmares. Even modes which overly restrict gaming, like Fallout 4's survival mode, grates at my fragile sensibilities. That being said, I do understand the appeal, as much as any outsider can, and hope more big name games accommodate for those sorts of playstyles in the future.

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.)

Diablo Games

They yearn for what they fear for

There are those few games that come out once a generation and completely shift the landscape for better or for worse. They change the conversation regarding what one could expect from games and what we should expect from the future. Sometimes it's an RPG pushing the limits of immersion, sometimes it's a online shooter starting a worldwide trend of Battle royales. In 1991, that game was Blizzard's Diablo and it helped spawn a franchise and a genre, both of which are still loved to this day. (Mostly. Diablo 3 still has it's critics.)

This genre has come to be known as 'Diablo-like', even if many modern iterations tend to be displeased with the forced association. They are characterized as isometric role playing games in which the focus of the gameplay is not in making decisions and exploring a lovingly rendered world space, but rather in slaying horrific beasties and trudging ever further down an unending dungeon of torment. these games were the original 'loot-grind' extravaganza, built from the ground-up to support replayablity and constant improvement. The Borderlands series may fashion itself as "The original looter shooter" (Quite rightly so, incidentally.) but the Diablo-like archetype was the specifications to which that franchise was built.

But what was it about Diablo that made it so special? Well, for that there is much debate. For my part I think that a key part of the franchises success comes from the way in which the game left much of it's content unexplained and left the consumer to discover what was going on. You must remember, as this game was the first of it's kind and this left a great many number of players incredibly confused as to how to reach their fullest potential in the game. Luckily, this came out in the beginning years of the Internet when people were just beginning to uncover the secrets of connectivity. And if you played Diablo you knew how to work the Internet, particularly because one needed an account on Blizzard's Battle.net in order to play online and chat. This meant that the player base became one of the first video game fandoms on the Internet and thus created a strong knit community that persisted for years. Plunge the depths of the Internet and you may still find an old, poorly formatted site for such a community. (Although most of the OG's are only archived on the Deep Web now.)

Whatever the causing factor might have been, Diablo turned out to be a huge success for Blizzard and the gaming industry in general. A press release from 1997 boasted that Blizzard's Battle.net servers had identified 13 million games, and Blizzard employees had their chests puffed out during interviews for the next year. Nowadays, Battle.net still exists and runs most all of Blizzard and Activision's online endeavours, all because of the smash hit that was the original Diablo.

All of the 'Diablo-like' games tend to follow a similar premise 'in homage' to the original that started it all. That means things usually start with a small town that gets attacked by an unlikely presence, causing the hero to go in search for the cause of it all. In Diablo, that means trekking through hoards of undead through miles of catacombs and into hell itself to kick the Devil where the sun don't shine. Other genre examples do tend to share in Diablo's penchant for hellish, grotesque and gruesome imagery as you plumb the depths of hell. Things never get too bad, (Like, say, they did in the weird hack-n-slash game; Dante's Inferno) but you'll see enough gross stuff to make a sensitive soul lose their lunch.

One way in which this genre appeals to such a vast array of gamers is  through the class system, something that Diablo bought to life in a way that no other RPG had quite managed before. In Diablo, when you choose you class you are essentially deciding the way that you will be playing the game for the long-haul. If you choose the Necromancer class that means you'll be spending all of your effort in summoning familiars to your aid. Those that prefer ranged combat might prefer the Demon Hunter class, melee folk might flock to the Monk, so on and so forth. Not only did this allow for players to cater towards their gameplaying strengths and preferences, but it incentivised repeat playthroughs as different classes to discover the strengths and weaknesses of each. Remember, different classes in these games fundamentally change the way the game is played, picking a new one can feel like a whole distinct experience.

Personally, I don't have as much of a storied history with this genre of games as some other gamers out there might, but I have dabbled in a few over the years. Specifically, I have tried my hand at Torchlight and Path of Exile. The former of which is a bright and colourful take on the genre that portrays cartoony characters and colourful attack trails whilst the later is a gritty upheaval of the formula of these kinds of games, fashioning itself as free-to-play and basking itself in all the seasonal gameplay events and online play features that one can shake a stick at. (Also cosmetics, PoE has a lot of those.)

Of those games, Torchlight was the only one that I played to completion (Or at least, as much as you can complete games like these) so I'll focus there. The times that I would play Torchlight almost felt akin to playing a clicker game, only with heaps more depth thrown in. By that, I mean that the key to these games is finding a strategy that works for you and spamming it to death. Therefore it is entirely feasible to breeze through several floors whilst watching a video on your phone and hardly paying attention to anything that you're doing. However, things are always shifting in games like these and so a winning tactic is only going to work on one type of enemy, you'll have to mix things up once you reach the next area. In this way, Diablo-games reach that interesting sweet spot between games that you can sail through in a power-fantasy haze, and those that have you glued to your every resource stat and buff, watching which tick down and up. It's a peculiar experience and one that I certainly recommend that you try for yourself at least once. (Remember, Path of Exile is free to play.)

There is no shortage of variety when it comes to these games, either. Whilst Diablo explores the depths of hellish mythology, (Although nothing on the Mexican land of dead despite the namesake) torchlight takes a bright and appealing approach to it's game design and Path of Exile envisions a bevy of surrealist monsters with slight mythological inspirations. There are even some more games like The Incredible Adventures of Van Helsing which delves into several European mythologies that one would expect from a property like that, including Sirens, Werewolves and ghosts. The only meta-genre that these games haven't touched is Sci-fi for some reason, and even then that's only as far as I know. There may be an amazing space Diablo out there that is yet to drift into my sphere of gaming knowledge.

Diablo games are the progenitors of worthwhile replayablitiy and have wormed their way into many a player's hearts consequently. Sure, when taking account the entire catalogue of games that make up this genre, the bar for quality might undulate a bit, but things have kept consistently good enough that people never lose faith in these games. Everytime there is a Diablo 3 to sour people's tastes, a Path of Exile comes out to bring equilibrium to the universe. Heck, by the time this blog comes out it is highly likely that we'll be looking at a Diablo 4 in the near future, so we'll get a chance to see how the series' formula has evolved in a world that has birthed the looter shooter craze. (I'm expecting a sword that walks at the very least.)

Big Series/ little mobile

It's only me...

Yesterday I voiced my concern about the recent news that Splinter Cell might (read: without a shadow of a doubt.) be making it's way to mobile in the future. This might come off as a tad elitist without any context, so let me share the reasoning behind my furrowed brow and disapproving tuts. Firstly, I have very little against the platform of mobile gaming, in fact I love the concept of being able to take games on the go and play them wherever and whenever you want. (I won't openly admit to engaging in emulators but let's just say that I've used my phone to keep myself up-to-date with my Pokemon fandom for a while now.) What's more, I find it heartening to think how far mobile gaming has seeped into the public and furthered the reach of the industry. Statista estimates there to be around 2.3 billion mobile gamers in the world this year, just imagine what heights that could reach a decade down the line.

So my problem isn't with the concept of mobile gaming, nor am I driven by some hipster-esque distaste for the popular; my issues stem for the fact that the actual games themselves are an embarrassment to the industry. I have written an article on this specific topic before, but just to recap, the vast majority of mobile games are some of the worst excuses for entrainment you could subject yourself too. Most are passionless, devoid of ingenuity and creativity and absolutely dripping with microtransactions and anti-consumerist practises. Some may wonder where the concepts of obfuscating premium currencies, moneypit lootboxes and intimidating time-exclusive offers, first came from; well, most rose to fame from the humble market of mobile. With the player base being so big and the community comprised of mostly casual gamers, (Who are more likely not to question the money grubbing, assuming it to be the norm.) small developers manage to rake in silly money using these tactics and so it was only a matter of time before the industry grandfathers caught up.

"But these mobile developers are usually small developers." You may argue. "Surely a big studio with experience behind them, manpower, capital and, most importantly, a reputation to uphold, would endeavour to make their mobile debut worthwhile." And you'd think that, but remember, money is the be-all end-all of the corporate world; why put effort and passion behind a project when you can simply follow the path of least resistance and get the same rewards. It may sound like I'm being disparaging, and I am, but it does make sound business sense to invest as little as possible for the most returns. ("Don't hate the player, hate the game", I suppose.)

Because of this, we are starting to see a trend amongst big games companies wherein they drag in the rotting carcass of one of their beloved, dead franchises and stick it on the mobile platform for all to see. No, I'm not talking about adapting the gameplay and mechanics that made the franchise great whilst porting it to more accessible systems (That would actually be pretty cool.) I talking about crafting a pathetic archetypal-mobile game clone and slathering it with a familiar coat of paint. I'd imagine meetings go something like; "Oh, people seem to be sinking a lot of money into runner games. We have a mascot famous for running don't we?" and then we end up with the Sonic Dash games. (Yes I said games.) That isn't the only example we have of nostalgia baiting either.

Electronic Arts have appeared so much on my blog that soon I'm going to have to start giving Andrew Wilson an assistant writer credit; but trust me, EA earns their place in my daily word-count with gusto. This time I'm dragging them back under the 'shame' spotlight in order to verbally lash them for the mess of a game that they called Dungeon Keeper. For those who are unfamiliar, The Dungeon Keeper series ran back in the late 90's and allowed players to assume the role of the overlord/architect of an expansive dungeon system. Players had to set up traps and defences in order to hold off against plundering humans and righteous heroes that seek to confront you. The whole concept was a fun subversive look at medieval fantasy and carried the delightful dark humor that one would come to expect from the same developers who made Theme series: Bullfrog Productions.

Of course, things changed once EA got more involved with them. Dungeon Keeper 3 was cancelled and Bullfrog were moved to working exclusively on the more profitable Harry Potter franchise until their complete assimilation back in 2001. This left EA with all of the licences and none of the responsibility to uphold their quality, but at least they waited until the game got nostalgic before going at it with a hacksaw. In 2013, EA and Mythic entertainment announced that they were creating a mobile game that would be a "twisted take" on the Dungeon Keeper franchise, and I cannot think of a more deliciously ironic statement that has ever been uttered.

2014 saw the release of one of the worst "reimaginings" to ever grace gaming. Final Fantasy 10 fans may complain about how their remake sacrificed artistic integrity for the sake of a higher resolution, but Dungeon Keeper fans get to top that with a game that was such a corporate cash grab that the British Advertising Standards Authority had to clamp down on EA for "misleading advertising" in claiming the game was free. In this Dungeon Keeper, players had to build their dungeons in real time, with every tile taking days or weeks to be mined out (Creating a cavern could literally take months.) But, not to worry, because you could speed up the time that each action took with a little bit of premium currency. Imagine the marketing techniques of Clash of Clans on steroids and you get 2014's Dungeon Keeper. Whereas in the original games you could set up your base and engage in raiding in about 10-20 minutes, here you had to make it either your life or your bank account's work in order to even reach the actual gameplay. That is assuming that this game even had raids, I don't think anyone managed to stick around long enough to find out. Needless to say, this was the last Dungeon Keeper game.

That isn't even the only time that EA pulled this trick, just the most well known. The Sims suffered a similar fate with Sims Freeplay. That game follows the exact same structure as Dungeon Keeper, with actions costing precious time or even more precious premium currency. Then there was E3 2018. That was the E3 in which EA did the apology tour for Battlefront 2 and ramped up excitement for the upcoming Anthem with a sizzle reel of uninteresting action. (In their defence, now we know the history of Anthem's development it is amazing they had anything ready for this E3 at all.) But none of those were the real focus for EA, judging by how they devoted the most conference time to their new mobile title, 'Command and Conquer: Rivals'. Just as strategy fans were begging EA to give them a new C&C, they turned around and gave us a 6-minute snoozefest of a presentation about this husk of a game. Now it's out, I can confirm that the thing isn't as desperate for your wallet as their previous mobile attempts, but it's still embarrassingly basic to be considered the follow-up to the most storied real time strategy game of all time. Guess it just cost a lot less time and money to make a mobile game

The other big mobile event of recent years would have to be the botched announcement of Diablo Immortal. This game was another 2018 casualty, announced by Blizzard at fan celebration event: Blizzcon, and suffered a brutal public execution. Diablo fans had been waiting a long time for the announcement of a new game since the last one, 2012's Diablo 3, failed to live up to the hype of the franchise. Fans crowed into the amphitheatre all excited to get a glimpse of their next obsession when the reveal was made that this new game would be a mobile entry. (Cue the sad trombones) Things were not helped when that poor foolish developer, after reading the iciness of the room, joked "What do you guys not have phones or something?" (Hire that dude at EA, he's got the foot-in-mouth routine down pat!)

Diablo is a very storied franchise that birthed a whole genre around its gameplay style. (I'd even argue that it birthed the looter shooter genre, but I'll save it for another blog.) It is a game that built it's community among some of the first hardcore PC gamers and has always been sure to cater to their origins. Then Diablo Immortal was announced, with it's re skinned characters, outsourced workload and identical gameplay to the last, critically panned, release. It should come to no one's surprise, least of all Blizzards, that one fan approached the mike after the show to ask if this was all just some "Out of season April Fools prank." (That actually happened by the way.) Blizzard have since come out to defend the decision, claiming that it was done with the intention of 'expanding the franchise' or some such corporate rot, but it doesn't take a genius to see the truth: There's a lot of money-pie on mobile and Blizzard thought they were due a slice.

Recently we've had a few classic series go the way of mobile fodder. Bethesda, ever keen to assassinate their decades worth of consumer goodwill, took time out of their E3 conference to announce their mobile remake of Commander Keen (See what I did there?) Square Enix recently announced a follow-up to their archetypal-mobile money sink Final Fantasy Brave Exvius. And Nintendo recently broke their promise about staying away from microtransactions in their mobile outings with the pay-wall ridden, Dr. Mario World. Not all of these mobile outings sound the death knell for their respective franchises but they are an affirmation to fans that quality is no longer the primary area of concern for these specific brands. And that may just be even worse.

So perhaps you can now see why I find myself scared for the future of Splinter Cell now that Ubisoft have aimed it at the mobile market. Things are only worsened by the fact that this E3, Ubisoft announced: Tom Clancy's Elite Squad; a crossover mobile game between all the Tom Clancy brands that looks to be another archetypal-battle game. Just seeing their low-polygon rendition of Sam Fisher makes my heart sink to think about what dire straits the Splinter Cell franchise could, and likely will, end up in.

Recently there was a little bit of hope for Splinter Cell fans in the form of a surprise cameo from Sam Fisher in 'Ghost Recon: Wildlands'. (I may have even picked up the game solely because of this cameo.) He was even being voiced by Michael Ironside again, which had players bouncing off the walls with excitement. "Ironside it back! The next game's announcement is merely a formality at this point!" However, the next E3 went by and all we got was this foreboding snippet from Yves about what size coffin he wants to bury the series in- I mean, how "There will be new types of experiments, but on more different devices." And it got me thinking to that crossover itself.

There in one scene in which Sam is talking with the player's CIA handler, Karen Bowman, about how he is a relic of the past. Sam refutes that claim and mentions how there was another guy, "Army infiltration- he wore a bandana or something." to which Karen replies "I heard he finally retired." For those who don't know, this is subtle reference to Metal Gear and the fact that, after 'Survive', the series is now dead. These franchises have acknowledged each other now and then throughout the years, alongside Gabriel Logan from Siphon Filter, so it feels strange now to think that only Splinter Cell remains. Sam shares these sentiments when he remarks "Then it's only me..." with a pensive stare.  I bring this up because, in someways Splinter Cell is the last gaming link we have to the golden age of stealth games, those others might be gone but Sam is still around to hold the torch. But I fear that may be in peril once he is relegated to a low-effort currency farm mobile game and the franchise is hung out to dry. It may just be the end of an area, and I find nothing more sad than thinking of the once proud stealth genre going out with a whimper instead of a quiet chokeout like it deserves.

The Best and Worst of Procedural Generation

Rise of the Machines.

You know, Game design is a really involved process. Every step of the way you are met with complications and tribulations as you attempt to (I love this analogy) build on top of wet concrete. So much development time gets chewed up by iterating and reiterating and shaping and reshaping fundamental design elements, that it can be overwhelming for unprepared development teams. Wouldn't it be a lot easier if one of those main development tasks could he handled by an independent entity. Not a contractor per-se, something more reliable with less overheads. Something like a computer. Instead of dedicating time to make a worldspace you could leave it to an algorithm to... procedurally generate.

Obviously I am being factious. Some game companies do utilize procedural generation in their games and the process is not quite as simple as a set-and-forget kind of thing. At least not if you intend for the final product to be presentable. A lot of work and oversight needs to go into the creation of a procedural generation system to ensure that it is creating content that is viable, bug-free and worthwhile for the player. When developers put in the time to set it up, the result is spectacular. Procedural generation is capable of creating much more than is feasibly possible with a limited workforce or creating the right conditions for potentially endless replayability.

Taking the leap to trusting the work of an algorithm can be daunting to some. Afterall, some of the fun of game design is knowing exactly how everything you've made fits together, like solving a huge, 4d puzzle; when you leave a portion of that work up to a computer, suddenly you add an element of uncertainty to that equation. If the possibilities of your procedural generation algorithm are endless, than how can you be sure to account for everything that could potentially go wrong?  Because of this factor, it is still considered a risky venture to implement procedural generation systems, ensuring those systems are a rarity in the modern AAA market.

Procedural generation does have a very long history in game development, longer than some people think. Not always a successful history, mind you, but a storied one at least. For the purposes of this blog I want to go back to some of the standout games to feature procedural generation and see how successfully they are implemented. That means that for every game I mention there are likely at least 10 more from that timeframe that I have skipped over, intentionally or otherwise. I have just taken the liberty to choose some games that I either have history with or a connection to. That being said, remember when I mentioned how I used to be a huge Star Wars nut? Would you believe that they made a Star Wars game that prominently featured procedural generation? Well they did.

'Star Wars: Yoda Stories' is an old school, topdown action-adventure game from the age before the prequels. Released in 1997, 'Yoda Stories' tells the tale of Luke arriving on Dagobah to complete his training under master Yoda. "Oh", you may think, "like that level from Lego Star Wars 2 then". No, and don't you ever make that comparison again! The game starts as you land in your X-wing and are forced to navigate the confusing locales in order to discover the home of that beloved little goblin. And when I say 'confusing locales' I'm not just referring to that fact that planet is a literal swamp. I mean 'confusing' because the game is ugly as sin and the environments are mind-numbingly repetitive. Once you do find Kermit's height-impaired little brother, that is only the start of your woes. Yoda then proceeds to send Luke on a fetch quest for some useless macguffin that might not even be on the same planet as you. Then rinse and repeat until you're too brain dead to operate the keyboard anymore.

"Sounds like you don't like this game." Why yes it does, voice in my head, well noted. "So why did you bring it up?" Well you see, the environments that the player are forced to roam through seem so uninteresting and boring, to the point where you just couldn't imagine a human being actually designing it, and that is because no human being did. Indeed, Yoda Stories' 'game selling' feature was the fact that it's levels were entirely procedurally generated, meaning that you could play again and again and never encounter the same level twice. (Why you would ever want to play again is beyond me, but the option is there.) This little gimmick would be nice if the algorithm was given enough direction and tools to make areas that felt somewhat distinct, but alas either 1997 programming tools were too rudimentary or the developers just didn't care enough. Whatever the reason, we are left with a game that is historic, but pretty decently awful.

Wait, the same game director who made Yoda Stories made another Lucas Arts published game a year beforehand? And it features another timeless property? Well that game can't be bad, right? Afterall, if it were, there is no way Lucas Arts would have hired him again within the space of a year, would they? 1996's 'Indiana Jones and his desktop adventures' is a topdown, action adventure- wait a minute, this seems familiar. That's right, it is essentially the exact same game with different a different coat of paint. However, this time the creators tried to push the 'procedural generation' aspect even harder then before; slapping possibly my favourite ever splash-text on the boxart: "Literally Billions Of  Possible Games!" Is that right? Billions, huh? Technically correct if you count one rock being slightly to the left as a whole new game. It's just a shame that all of those game's are terrible, isn't it.

Before we speed ahead, let's go back a bit. To a game that birthed on of my personal favourite franchises of all time: 'The Elder Scrolls: Arena'. Long has my love-affair with The Elder Scrolls blossomed. Starting with Morrowind and eventually stretching to every single main-line entry of the series. But none of that history has made me biased, when I first approached Arena I made sure to put all that aside and judge the game from it's own merits. As such I managed to enjoy Arena for the old school, rudimentary, hack and slash that it was. The dungeons became a little unwieldy in the later levels but my overall impression was that it was a solid game that could very much stand on it's on. (In fact, it sort of does stand on it's own; considering how little story and lore the game shares with it's successors.)

One element of the game that I didn't enjoy was the experience of attempting to grind. Many of the end-game locales require the player to seriously beef up before tackling them, which leaves the player in a bit of a predicament. You see, whilst you were able to use the map to travel to story-relevant areas and cities, there is no way to use the map for tracking down optional areas to conquer. Adventurers had to use their initiative and wonder out into the wilderness hoping to come across old ruins. (Or just stalk the town's streets at night, as then they become dripping with hostiles. Apparently, no one ever told the city guard to take shifts.)  The problem with this approach is the fact that the gameworld is big. Ungainly big. As in, before ESO, this game was the only one in the franchise to encompass all of Tamriel. Hearing this might may you think "Wow, how did early Bethesda manage to craft an entire continent?". Well, I featured the game on this blog so you can likely figure it out. The Elder Scrolls Arena utilized a procedural generation algorithm in order to craft it's open world. The result is an open world that would take weeks to traverse (In real time) and a random assortment of side-dungeons that honestly aren't worth the effort to clear. Like many early randomly-generated games, Arena's execution falls a fair bit short of the team's aspirations. Luckily the base game is solid enough that this failure didn't sink the game and now we have Skyrim so I'd say the world is mostly better off.

The next game is legendary enough to likely need no introduction or explanation, but I enjoy self-imposed redundancy, so here we go. 2009 saw the release of the biggest indie title ever, Mojang's Minecraft. Since then, millions of players have been won over by Minecraft's promise of unrestrained creativity where you can make the game whatever you want it to be. (Providing you want it to be a game about building things.) It's social proliferation has reached such a degree where the game has managed to survive being run through by traditional media and still come out the otherside smelling of roses. Minecraft even pulled of the greatest trick any game can pull, being dethroned from it's 'most popular' podium by newcomer Fortnite, only to crawl it's way back 'On The Waterfront'-style in a comeback story for the ages. (Once which everyone tells differently, by the by.

I mention Mojang's opus here because Minecraft was the very first game I played in which I noticed and appreciated the procedural generation element. In Minecraft, the world in which you inhabit stretches out for all eternity. (Or at least until you travel 7784 miles away from spawn. which you ain't gonna do be accident.)  This means that the player can wonder the world and explore it's vistas in perpetuity. This algorithm is one that Mojang have spent the last 10 years perfecting, in order to ensure that the world it generates is always worth looking at. For my part, I still see the odd extreme hill that still blows me away even after all these years. The infinite world also means that the player has access to infinite resources with which to build with. Minecraft is perhaps one of the best examples of procedural generation implemented and executed perfectly. It enriches the game and truly makes it feel endless. (In a good way.)

There is one genre in particular makes use of procedural generation as part of it's MO. Rougelites and Rouge-likes like to change up their playspace each time the player dies in order to keep things feeling fresh. And it's necessary for a game genre built around the concept of the player dying and starting again over and over.  Rougelites in particular often use a 'room-based' navigation system in order to allow for random generation to affect each 'room' separately and string them together into one unique dungeon. The Binding of Issac, Moonlighters, Spelunky and many more all rely upon robust algorithms mixing things up constantly. Randomized layout, enemy placement and item generation assures that no one is ever relaxed when tackling a new run.

This implementation is the similar to the way Diablo and it's successors use procedural generation. In Diablo, the player is tasked with battling their way down through hell and slaying the titular demon of damnation. The kicker is that the plethora of dungeons that the player goes through, are all computer generated, as is their enemies and the hoards of loot said-enemies drop. This is another necessary implementation as Diablo is designed to be replayed over and over as the player engages in the gameplay loop of perpetual self improvement. Diablo-esque games like Path of Exile and Torchlight make use of similar systems in their send up to Diablo.

A few of the examples I have already bought up have been about developers using algorithms in order to circumvent a potentially impossible workload. Although, I think no company embodies this ideal as perfectly as Hello Games with their title, No Man's Sky. NMS is a game that will be forever tainted by the fact that is promised the stars and gave the moon. But to be honest, even in apparent failure, Hello games achieved something spectacular. Describing the size of No Man's Sky is hard, so I'll just quote the official Wiki "The universe of No Man's Sky (is comprised of) 255 unique galaxies, which in turn comprise around 3 to 4 billion regions, each of which contain more than 122 and up to hundreds of star systems. All star systems feature from 1-6 planets and moons, and usually a single space station." One quote from one the developers was floating around about how 'if you were to visit one planet every second, you would die before experiencing half of a single galaxy."

Technologically, No Man's Sky is an absolute marvel only possible through advanced and refined procedural algorithms. The problem is that NMS relies on the generation a bit too much. With all those planets available, there are bound to be a few that aren't worth visiting, the problem is that NMS planets are so similar that it isn't long before none of them are worth visiting. That's a little bit of a problem in a game that is specifically deigned around the idea of exploration. If the player has seen everything by the 10th hour then they sort of lose the incentive to keep travelling. In recent updates, No Man's Sky has shifted the focus from 'constant exploration' to the much more gamplay-sound mentality of 'builidng a home'. Taking a page out of Minecraft's book they've managed to make the game feel much more worthwhile. However, I still play the game as my background for podcast time. (Like the freak I am.)

Here's one that you might not have known; 'Mass Effect: Andromeda' was originally supposed to have a procedural generated element to it just like No Man's Sky. Back when Bioware were still figuring out what the game would look like, the choice had been made that the Andromeda Galaxy would be inhabited by completely random planets created on the spot. That's why much of the game's dialogue revolves around your family having the 'hearts of explorers' despite the fact you only see 5 planets and spend most of your time shooting people on them. Bioware wanted to allow players to colonize whichever worlds that they saw fit to, essentially allowing us to decide the future home of humanity.

This would have been the first AAA game to make significant use of procedural generation had the idea made it to inception. Unfortunately, the idea was left on the cutting room floor after it became apparent that 'the randomly generated planets would not meet Bioware's standard of quality'. Given how those same systems worked out for NMS and The Elder Scrolls: Arena, I have to say the logic is sound. However, I still can't help but think that if a big budget studio were to put their weight behind a galaxy generator we could get something worthwhile; heck, Bioware must have thought the same thing if the idea made it to a pitch room. I think the real reason it was scrapped it because the publishers got cold feet. You can never be sure of how a computer-run development would turn out so EA likely thought it was better not to take the risk. Either way, it's a darn shame that we won't see a space game push the boundaries of tech in such a cool way for a while, if ever.

As I have said a few times in this blog, procedural generation is a risk. When you leave the shape of your creative endeavour to be decided by fate, you either end up simulating the chaos of nature or the soullessness of a computer. Few are willing to put their work on the line like that, but those that are can sometimes change the way we look at games. Minecraft was originally conceptualized as one prebuilt world that players would mess around in, allowing the players some degree of freedom but nothing close to what they have today. With procedural generation in Minecraft, every world feels unique to the player that inhabits it; they don't just become their world's architect, they become it's arbiter. It's a subtle difference but one that completely shifts the player's personal relationship to that world. Now, of course, not all procedural generation systems have that exact effect, but they all lend a touch of uncertainty that cannot be captured in any other way. As we move into the age of the Scarlett and PlayStation 5, I find myself optimistic for the future of computer generated content in games. The better the tech, the better the scope to create something bigger and more diverse than any human brain could ever envision. Who knows, maybe one day we'll get an AI advanced enough to create an entire game by itself. True, at that point the thing will have likely transcended human scope and will hence become Skynet, but at least we'll get one kick-ass game before we all get annihilated by our robot overlords.