Bye bye E3- we hardly knew ya.

Good riddance

I feel like we already had this ceremony, didn't we? Hell, I remember closing the book firmly on what was E3 pretty much the moment I heard they'd given up on this year's event. I'm pretty sure they were pretty definitive in their sentiments. Some small 'lip service' about potentially coming back was little more than hopeful gibberish- no one really expected to see them pull it back. Remember that PlayStation, Nintendo and Microsoft all ghosted them in the same year! There's no coming back from that! But I guess what we all needed was the short and very brisk goodbye message from the ESA officially bidding farewell to the Electronic Entertainment Expo that we all loved to make fun of. And with it goes many fond memories of reveals that blew us away, events that made us cringe and Ubisoft conferences which dragged on through the Just Dance sections every year despite the fact the game was an annual release- they didn't need to spend that money and time to choreograph it!

Who can remember their favourite moments of the E3 lineup? There are the classics like the 'Giant Enemy Crab' who appeared in a game that was just introduced as a 'grounded and realistic' feudal war game. Several screw-ups featuring Nintendo and their attempts to make motion controls look more intensive then they really are. And more than one presenter who climbed on to stage clearly inebriated out of their minds, whereupon they preceded to make absolute fools of themselves. Of course, then there are the more sweet memories that only a live event can confer. Such as during the reveal for Beyond Good and Evil 2 where the team members forgot to turn their mic off after going back stage and you could hear them congratulate one another- that was adorable. (I wonder how that game turned out when it released...) But all those memories, dreams and nightmares, will be lost in time; like, tears out of the ESA's eyeballs when they realise they aren't the big boys of the games industry anymore.

Rockstar were really the first superstar developers to stamp their feet in the ground and announce they didn't need the ESA to advertise their games, back when they found themselves at the centre of a bizarre controversy due to a leaked build that was running objectional content that never even made it to the full game anyway. But then, Rockstar didn't need the ESA; they were probably the biggest developers on the planet, at least in reputation. That hasn't really changed, and it's taken several decades for everyone else to carry themselves to that same point of self-sufficiency. But here we are, the console runners are no longer beholden to a yearly horse and pony show. They still put one on, however, because otherwise us greedy gamers would get antsy and start picking off our ever expanding backlogs. But no, we can't have that! We need to keep players engaged with content forever because trapping players in an endless cycle of replay is what makes a good game, not making them feel like they enjoyed themselves. (I would say that was facetious but recently it's become clear that Call of Duty developers seriously subscribe to that thought process. Wild.)

It was only a matter of time until the ESA could no longer extort it's peers for advertising space. Leaving the industry with only the biggest award show of the year as an organised point of congregation every year. And you know what? That's alright. It was already getting unrealistic for all these big seasonal events to spit out worthwhile video game announcements, and with development periods only getting longer there really isn't enough to fill the gaps anymore. There's only so many advertising slots that can feasibly be filled, and now those slots are the sole monopolies of the console developers which is... better? I don't really know. I just know that this doesn't quite feel like the happy freeze frame moment at the end of the heartwarming movie. Kind of feels like the cold fade to credits with a stinger in the post moments.

So now we turn on the Game Awards with all of our left over ire? To be fair, journalists always had a chip on their shoulder about the E3 trade show, seemingly upset at it's attempts to become more of a fan celebration event for some reason, laughing at it's flailing attempts to 'update' to the modern age. I guess because they would prefer it if we had no events to bring the game's industry together? I guess that must be why utmost hatred of the Game Awards is now popular- this year's iteration has been declared a disgrace to the industry and pitchforks want the whole thing to burn down. Why? Because the advertising got a little out of hand this year. That's about it. Geoff seems like a reasonable enough guy who listens to criticism, but that's not enough- we need to rip it apart for the good of gaming! Apparently.

I'll be honest, I actually really like gaming event shows. So much of the games industry feels like such a lonely hobby. We play alone, we get excited alone, we game together alone thanks to the death of LAN- I just like the feeling of the community all having it's eyes in the same spot at the same time. When everyone is getting hyped or rolling their eyes at a new announcement we finally feel like, you know, a 'community', and I don't there's some higher morality to turning your nose up at some events because they don't quite slide in to every facet of respectful representation you expect it to. I literally read an article from a writer who moralised over the fact they didn't watch the show, and still went on to complain about it's contents! What kind of future do you really want, anyway? Are a couple of events every year really the worst thing for the industry?

There's always going to be a balance between awards and game advertisements, and although the balance was woefully twisted this time around- I still want there to be equal amounts. If Geoff found a way to fund the show completely independently and hosted the awards without any announcements whatsoever- I wouldn't watch. Because to be honest with you, I don't really care about who wins awards. It is a significant event, as much as the same journalists are desperate to insist it isn't, because the fact that The Game Awards is the most watched award show of the year grants power to the winners and prestige that draws talent, establishes respect and widens opportunity. But how did the show get to be so sought after? Because everyone is tuning in to see what crazy announcement Geoff has cooked up! It's a tightrope to walk, between advertising and award giving, but it's a necessary one as far as keeping the show relevant is concerned. 

Maybe it's failing to even engage with that tightrope which ultimately killed E3. They had nothing there for the community and industry- it was all advertising, and that made the event feel disposable and exploitative. Many out there like to denigrate Geoff Keighley as nothing but a marketing man with no real respect for the art of gaming, but I'm sorry- if that were true he would never have thought to do an Award show. He would have made yet another trade show. Geoff Keighley wanted the medium to be respected, he wanted to have his own version of the Oscars, he wanted to celebrate games. Does he enrich himself in the process, yes- the man isn't a nun! But to throw him in with the same lot as the ESA is, I think, to give E3 so much more credit than it was ever do. Goodbye to the Expo, and to hell with the Expo.

E3 suffers final death

 For real this time

When last we spoke of the Electronic Entertainment Expo, we were already sizing it up for the event's Mahgony lid coffin. Because what else are you going to do when all of the major developers either pull out or set themselves up with convenient E3 alternatives on the off-chance that you pull out? Covid changed a lot of the power dynamics of live event shows, and reminded the world of gaming that most all of it's audience live exclusively on the Internet: which therefore makes it the place to be if you want to reach and appeal directly to that style of person. What is the point of spending thousands renting out a booth crammed with others where you have to fight and vie for attention when you can take that time for yourself, only show off exactly the content that your studio is ready to show and save those marketing dollars for a trip to Vancouver or something. The point is that the ESA won't be hoovering up money for doing nothing more than renting out the convention centre that they themselves rented.

And you know what; couldn't have happened to a more decrepit and internally corrupt group of suits- and I mean that. For a board that was originally designed to help protect the industry during the rise of government scrutiny after the violence of Mortal Kombat, the ESA has grown depressingly partisan and fangless over the past decades. I'm not even talking about the accepting of various high level game studio executives into their ranks, because I understand the need to have relevant professionals to keep the discourse feeling relevant and up-to-date: I take issue more with the idea that ESA are somehow above the law and thus don't have to impart the same diligence to protecting it's consumers if it might hurt their bottom line. Who remembers their absolute refusal to stick to their own guns by labelling EA games that preyed on the addictive properties of psychological manipulation to make their FIFA money? Preying on a game that is categorised as playable for children, yet cranking down on Pokémon for having a fictional, virtual, casino depicted in game. Guess Gamefreak should have paid more bribe money, eh?

For a time the literal only thing that the ESA could do right was put together the E3 showcase, and that was largely because they didn't have to do much of anything but organise an itinerary and send out invitations. For the most part it was Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo and whomever else was big enough to secure their own showcase, deciding on how to set-up their show, who to invite and where best to position themselves within the rented space. The only time the ESA decided it was within their prerogative to get involved was during the aftermath of the Cyberpunk announcement, where it was apparently their 'brilliant' idea to reach out to traditional world celebrities to host after the success of Keanu Reeves' surprise appearance. Unfortunately that was an inkling which lived on in Geoff Keighley- resulting in the Game Awards with Al Pacino. I mean I love Pacino's movies and all, but really?

But everything changed when the Covid nation attacked. That initial sweeping wave was far too sudden in the year for the ESA to react. The very concept of 'remote shows' was still looked on as a low-rent cost saving measure back then, not fit for the pretentious snobs who thought themselves irreplaceable in an industry that ran totally without them. The Game Awards had far less problems moving to the virtual space, which is how Geoff managed to neatly steal the crown of 'gaming event of the year' from the ESA due to their lethargy. When the ESA finally did manage to throw a show together, it was largely a disappointment probably best summed up by Randy Pitchford's appearance for his Gearbox showcase. You remember, the one which recycled footage that had already been revealed the previous month and existed simply to showcase Randy touring the Borderlands movie set squealing like a school girl at things he wasn't allowed to show the camera. Prime time E3, everybody!

We have the summer games fest to fill the void, a festival which actually manages to sync up to the gamers around the world in a very real way thanks to Steam integration, providing demos and early looks that anyone with a Steam account can play free of charge, which is of course something that E3 was never able to do. You see, E3 was very much a holdover from the old world of conventions, where the biggest interaction that the consumer could expect with the creators were in ESA's formal presentation standard. Now we have social media routes, and official Youtube channels and Twitter threads and Steam blogs and personal online event shows, and everything that the industry needed to totally blow past E3 and appeal directly to the people who love their games. The success story of titles like Vampire Survivors, Valhiem and other E3 absent games are proof that the grass routes can sometimes be all that you need.

The ESA, on the otherhand, were mere weeks away from the event before they had to cancel it, meaning that the LA convention centre was already booked in their name and it probably cost exorbitant fees for cancellation. But probably not as much as they were set to lose after literally everyone bailed on them, including the company so pitifully bad with it's business decisions that they've gone full Crypto of late. (Never go full crypto.) Of course, this decentralisation of the 'show' format is going to have the knock on effect of further segmenting and isolating fandoms of certain companies- (I can never figure out when those Playstation events are happening until the night after) but the relative release of load on the brunt of the actual studios making these games is probably better for the health of everyone.

As a culture we had begun to get sick of all those times when a company with nothing to show for an upcoming title has been forced to scramble about and haphazardly stick something together that they know is going to be a disappointment but they have no choice because E3 is a deadline that cannot be moved. Show everyone a pretty CG cutscene that you hired an external studio to put together and hope that keeps the wolves at bay and busy whilst the real work goes on frantically behind the scenes. Or maybe even cut out some time from real development to work on a vertical slice that is going to be pulled apart and dissected by a public audience as though they're a gladiatorial retinue deciding the fate of the game. Along the way, maybe you'll do a Ubisoft and create a slice of game far beyond what you've already made and probably beyond what you're even capable of achieving on current hardware- still, you'll have won over the ravenous crowd for today; and that's good enough, right?

I already buried E3 in my heart back when it was delayed following Covid, because we all knew the direction it was going. When Microsoft and Sony pulled out of the 2023 event, it was without a batted eyelash that we all just accepted the news, because of course they did- who even knew it was still happening? It's honestly quite galling that the ESA waited for so long to pull the plug on every one else, as though Ubisoft were the only glue holding the event together. "Oh no, it can't possibly be a successful show without the obligatory too-long 'Just Dance' showcase that Ubisoft always pulls! Guess we're going to have to cancel it..." I don't feel sorry, and I don't like the ESA so I don't feel bad. I actually look forward to reading about E3 as the historical footnote is should have been 8-10 years ago. Good riddance.

E3 2033 is looking lonely...

 Looking like a short show this year...

The Electronic Entertainment Expo, I think, was a staple of the gaming world not all that long ago, even if it does feel like decades past to consider out loud. E3 was the one time in the year that every gamer rushed home early, busy-tailed and wide-eyed, eager to gaze in amazement at the latest spring-up-wonder cooked up in that ol' dream factory from LA! Wha- Hollywood? No, no- I'm talking the LA convention centre; where studios of all sizes battled each other with overly expensive bids to try and win a tiny booth in a packed warehouse which was always inevitably dominated by the prevailing three: Nintendo, Microsoft and PlayStation. The holy trinity of gaming. Other faces would come and go, rise and fall, but the three titan pillars of our industry proved to all staunch foundations upon which this industry event stood. As such, you can probably imagine how the ground must have fallen out from under the new E3 organisers for 2023 when all those three big boys refused to provide a presence for the upcoming year's showcase. (Ouch, rejection is never easy...)

For this year the unlucky runners of the E3 showcase are going to be veteran convention organisers 'ReedPop', known for their work in pulling off Star Wars Celebrations, PAX and New York Comic Con. All of that experience tells me that they're not going to exactly have their spirit broken simply because the big boys don't want to show up to their show, but I do wonder if ReedPop have weighed up exactly the size of the shoes they're stepping into. The ESA have been the whipping boys of online discourse surrounding industry marketing disaster events for the past few years for the way that they've handled trying to pull off E3. Every idea that the ESA tossed around just stunk of 'we don't know how to appeal to gamers' in their attempt to appeal to a more 'generalised demographic'. Although I will give the old E3 kudos for tricking Disney XD into airing E3 without realising that the event would be full of 15+ rated games that parents do not want their children to be watching on the big TV at home.

With ReedPop there's a hope that given their experienced familiarity with nerd culture and even with the various worlds of gaming specifically, we won't be seeing a bevy of out-of-touch organisers turning to desperate means in order to get attention. Such as seeking out celebrities to be hosts because of the Keanu Reeves moment during Cyberpunk's conference, which in turn totally misses the point of why that moment worked and how soundly that special moment would have been ruined with a resulting influx of unnecessary cameos. Although that may be something of a vain hope after all those bubbling rumours that some facet of ReedPop's management has caused an upset among potential attendees. Although there's no evidence to back it up so far, there's a possibility that Nintendo walked away because of ReedPops wanting conduct. Or maybe they just heard that Microsoft wasn't coming and didn't want to be alone. That's a very real possibility too.

Whatsmore, I can't help but wonder if the cultural need for E3 hasn't passed all of us by given the rise of Geoff Keighley's Game Awards which seems deadest on fulfilling the gap left by E3 within our culture. Long ago the community once came to E3 looking for the low down on their exciting upcoming games of the year, only to become increasingly frustrated as more and more companies started coming to E3 with nothing but CG trailers that could have just as easily made it onto their Youtube page without all the expensive and wasteful fanfare. Yes, E3 is a massive marketing machine, but it's a marketing event that should provide enough stage time to really give time to dive into the specifics of gameplay with back-up footage. Failing that, E3 is just a barrage of trailers totally undeserving of hosts or a physical stage at all. The Game Awards pulled that off better last year than E3 managed in it's past three events. The balance of power has shifted.

Now to be fair, this mass withdrawal of all the big studios out of the E3 lineup dpes not, as it might seem, come totally out of nowhere. PlayStation actually pulled out all the way back in 2019 in order to save all of their reveals and gameplay previews for their dedicated 'State of Play' showcase event which they've thrived using exclusively throughout their recent years. Nintendo has their special 'Direct' conference which always could have replaced their E3 slot, but until this year never actually had to. And with the recent Microsoft-Bethesda conference which recently managed to shadow drop a half priced game that has performed well enough to out-earn Forspoken in their shared release week, the big M have proven theirs is a formula worth sticking to as well. E3 is a time investment and a secondary deadline that has sat on the back of development studios for decades, being set free of that schedule is a godsend for many.

In their absence, the other studios who show up are going to have their chance to really step up and try to fill the perilous void. But given that each of those three big studios usually had entire days dedicated just to them and the games under their purview- the whole E3 event is inevitably going to feel smaller this time around no matter what happens. Square Enix have a lot going on, but they rarely know how to properly show it off. (Kingdom Hearts 4 footage would be appreciated, thanks bunches.) Embracer Group could really do with setting up some sort of presence given their unholy number of studios they've collected like some sort of 'Avengers' of developers; but they prefer to remain on the outskirts like anime supervillains. And I'd love for Gearbox to make a longer showcase so we can see Randy Pitchford steal even more time away from his own studio to show us his home videos of him visiting movie sets and whatever else catches his fancy. (Maybe he can have horse riding lessons and show us a montage of his progress- the possibilities are endless!)

The dominance of the AAA landscape of gaming lasted for so very long through the same means that Hollywood propagates it's most expensive projects. Marketing excess. But not only has the tight weave of marketing unravelled in recent years with the sleeper hits of Vampire Survivors and Valhiem domineering recent charts, the aforementioned Hi-Fi Rush beating out Forspoken is a perfect example that traditional marketing is no longer the sure route to riches it once was. Luck is a major factor, trust is just as strong but word of mouth is king. And word of mouth sounds so much better coming from the vocal cords of a human being rather than the bowels of a marketing machine. E3 might not be the catapult to success anymore, or at the very least it's not the only catapult; even if it might still be the most expensive.

When the ESA retired E3 it was amidst a whirlwind of bad vibes and sparked controversy, a storm that might have been weathered if they communicated themselves a bit clearer, but here we are. I think a lot of the really in-tune members of the gaming community were happy to let E3 sunset off and never bother a one of us again, such that most of us find this return a bit too little too late. Maybe if they got the big boys to come down and deliver a knock out E3 the community would reconsider, but with the line-up we're looking at I wouldn't be surprised if this year's E3 is a quickly forgotten footnote with little to show for itself. Maybe what the ESA are shooting for is that one last inglorious disappointment to let everyone know once and for all that what they have truly is irrelevant, and that the age of conventions is finally long past. 

Is E3 Dead?

 Probably

In 1995, Erik Earling Easterburn successfully identified a huge and enticing gap in the technology market. For years beforehand the Consumer Electronic Show (1964-today) and the European Trade Computer Show (1988-2004) were the two trade shows that dominated everything to do with electronics in entertainment. But Erik knew there was untapped potential due to burst forth from the rush of modern, constantly reiterating, technologies. Having had apprenticed under technological giants like Cave Johnson and co-dormed with visionaries like Miles Dyson, Erik had the process of rapidly progressing technological niches printed onto his frontal cortex; he knew the coming expanded diversification of technology fields would warrant specialised trade shows in each sector, and he wanted to be the man to snatch up the, currently still infantile, video gaming branch of tech.

 Reaching out to anyone in this fresh industry who would pick up the phone, partnered and financed with his well-connected sister, Eunice Sarah Allistar, (Nee Easterburn) they managed to get the big studios they needed, as well as a huge venue in the Los Angeles Convention Centre, to host the worlds very first tradeshow dedicated solely to video games and displaying the best and brightest of the industry. Just in time for powerhouse classics to feature on the very first show floor, like that years' 'Knuckles Chaotix', 'Garfield: Caught in the act', 'DOOM' but not that DOOM- the SNES version, 'Pitfall: The Mayan Adventure'- which is the fourth Pitfall game. Because of course they made four. 'Ecco Jr.', this one's still a dolphin. And 'White Men Can't Jump', which I thought was a movie, but what do I know? All games destined to be absolute classics we all talk about today with excitable reverence. All bought together by an unbreakable brother-sister team, sealed in a convention baring the abbreviated name of the creator. Erik Earling Easterburn: E3.

What a beautiful story; and one you won't find on Wiki, Youtube, or literally any other source on the known web apart from here. Hmm, how do I know it then? What's my source? Well, Jack: My source is that I made it the F*** up. That's right it's all bull. I fooled you. Our writers came up with that one. Not this time. (A similar incident did occur for the speed-eating champion of Scranton Pennsylvania however, Chalupa division.) I know that's nakedly and unashamedly dishonest, but I thought a wink and a joke would be the best way to break the news that the ol' parents may be getting a divorce. That's right, Jimmy; the ESA and E3 can no longer stand to be in the same room as each other, let alone wake up each and every morning opposite someone that they hate. That's why as of a couple days ago, the E3 conference 2022 was cancelled, physical and digital event, leaving us hanging around in another year of abject turmoil as we sit around wondering "Who's going to get the kids."

It's no secret that this pandemic has screwed the ever loving life out of the E3 expos. Ever since 2020 they haven't been allowed to do a proper in person show, and 2021 featured a digital show so bad that I still have nightmares that I'm trapped on a movie set with Randy Pitchford who keeps almost showing me things from the Borderlands Movie before cutting the camera away at the last second. True hell. Only for that show to be outperformed by Playstation's several online events later that year, Xbox's own event, Nintendo's own event; practically everyone and their fish could hold more compelling video-game related reveal events that don't have to rely on painful bloat or ludicrously overinflated host time slots. Let the PC Gaming Show and it's notoriously overinvolved skits be the lightning rod for why this style of presentation is so utterly behind us. If nothing else we can celebrate that we won't have to deal with another 3 minute mirthless banter between two chemically insoluble 'comedic' hosts and their soul-killing robot mascot. If I had to endure another- huh? The PC Gaming Show is still happening despite the lack of an E3? Well crap. Why even cancel it then?

Of course, it's not just the cringe; the trade show has lost interest with the market as people have grown so used to a world built for instant gratification, and strayed so far from pre-scheduled time-stealing broadcasts that a belated, twisted trade expo like E3 seems archaic. And if the audience doesn't want to put up with the fuss around E3 anymore, then you can bet that the developers and publisher don't want to either. I'm sure you don't need to convince them at all to pull back on the multimillion dollar investment it takes to rent out a convention slot at the LA centre during E3. An expense that Devolver Digital pretty much dedicated it's entire E3 presence to mocking over the past decade. The ESA don't have their stranglehold over the year of game announcements anymore, and this sudden cancellation shows that they're feeling it.

I say this because whilst this might feel very sudden for us, those with their ears in the right places report that this storm has been brewing for a long while. Those typically in charge of reaching out to the ESA for events like these noticed all the way back in December that they weren't receiving any correspondence, and had assumed themselves that the show was off. Which collides with the ESA's stated reason for the show being cancelled: due to the emergence of the Omicron variant. We weren't even that far down the Greek alphabet by December! So true to their embarrassing form, the ESA have made big moves and lied about them to the public for no good reason. Unless to hide the palpable lack of power they've adopted in the past year, but that was going to come out anyway. Lying about it just makes them look pathetic and dishonest.

And the public reaction to this? Well it seems to be pretty widespread relief and/or mocking. Oh, and a initial hurdle of disbelief as this news was officially revealed on freakin' April Fools day; what were they thinking? Just as with 2020 the conversation has turned to suppositions about whether or not we need E3, with the added ammunition of now we've already had these debates, followed by a pretty trashy online E3 just last year to sour perceptions further. Meanwhile the huge game reveals: The gameplay drop for Elden Ring, the Knights of the Old Republic Remake, and the delay of Breath of the Wild 2, happened either around this show, with independent articles that reached just as far as E3 would have, or during Geoff Keighley's game award; which is proving to be the Oscars of gaming. (With less flinging meat.) Oh, and Geoff quietly praised the cancellation with a smiley face Tweet and the confirmation that Summer Games Fest is happy and eager to take it's place.

So we have an E3-less world coming up ahead of us, and though the ESA promises to the high heavens that it'll be back in 2023; one has to ask "What's the point?" Companies don't need you, the audience can't stand you, industry veterans mock your misfortunes, more and more it's feeling like the sun has set on the ESA's cash cow and their bitterness refuses to accept that. Like Colonel Volgin pushing his bullet-riddled burned body past the point of certain death because he promised to us all "It isn't over yet!" Well maybe it is. Maybe it ended 2 years ago. Maybe all this flailing and gasping is for naught and nobody is going to turn up to your crappy house party this time next year. And maybe the dream that Erik Earling Easterburn dreamt all those years ago has finally run it's course... Wait, I made that up. Dammit; what are we talking about again?

E3 is dead.

F's in the chat

Corona claims it's next victim, and boy was he little more than a babe. Only 25 years old and the poor old Electronic Entertainment Expo has been put out to pasture. It's joined the big convention centre in the sky. It has shuffled off it's mortal coil. E3 is dead. Now, usually at such an announcement the protocol is to announce "___ is dead, Long live ___". It's a tradition that dates back to royalty to signify that whilst this individual is no more the royal succession continues on, but you'll notice that I have forgone that little addendum for a pointed purpose: I'm unsure if there will be another E3, let me explain why.

Over the past few days there a certain electricity that was running through the gaming news cycle as everybody with a source to their name was catching the coming shock-waves of something big. This is beyond the very public indications that all was not right in paradise, such as the ESA parting ways with the company they had bought aboard to help organise the event only a handful of months after announcing their partnership, and the bevy of studios announcing that they were going to pull out. Then there this little international incident known as the Corona outbreak which is so threatening to large gatherings of people that there's talk to cancel the Olympics. (Although if you're a Brit I'd imagine that the impending cancellation of the football season is more important. I wouldn't know, I'm no fan.) Corona already managed to cancel one potential gaming event and severely scale-down another, but the ESA still assured us that everything would still be full steam ahead despite the Coronavirus.

Well all that changed the day before yesterday when news started to flood out from the various companies who would be expected to attend and essentially make this event, apparently they received the news first. Now, I don't know who was technically the first to break the silence, as the official announcement was due for Wednesday, but the first message I saw was put out by Devolver Digital of all people, and some deep part of me really hopes they got the pleasure of breaking this one. Whoever said it first, the message rings just as true; 'E3 has been cancelled for the year' and now everyone can resort to breaking down and hyperventilating into bags like always. (Heck, E3 is literally the only event all year that I look forward to so I might as well go lay down in traffic.) Although to be fair I think the folk who are most distraught about this turn of events is the marketing companies who put all their chips into this yearly staple. So I guess that means Cyberpunk 2077's presentation is going to have to be a little more 'online' this year. (That's no biggie, though. It suits the aesthetic, afterall.)

But is this really the end of the world like us melodramatics are making it out as, or really for the best as it paints a precedent that we really should follow for the foreseeable future: a year with no E3? I'd imagine that if you happen to be part of Devolver Digital you've likely settled on the latter, as those folk have done little to hide their disdain of E3 over the years. Time after time again they've dedicated a portion of their E3 conferences to actively mocking the style of E3, the shape of the event or the AAA landscape in general, which is part of the reason that I hope they're just soaking up this development with glee. (They've said it's playful but there's only so many times that you can punch someone in the gut whilst holding a smile before it starts to feel a little mean-spirited.) Their grievances are transparent; E3 is outdated, too expensive and too limiting. (They've never publicly bashed the ESA for also being a little corrupt, but I'd imagine they're probably at odds with that too.)

Even before any of this there were big changes being forced upon E3 by outside forces, such as Sony pulling out of the event last year and this year, despite having several high profile titles that positively needed some dedicated advertising space. Then there is the pulling out of Geoff Keighley from the event, who left with a bevy of unsettlingly vague comments about the event which only inspired dubiety across his Twitter-sphere. Then there is the general distaste that was rising in the public's opinion of this E3 due to leaked details about how the ESA were planning to flood the event with celebrities and all manner of embarrassing show-piece events.

Of course, this doesn't mean that there won't be any event coming this June, and that is the reason why us gamers still have a reason to hold-off on the noose for a little bit longer. You see, whilst the ESA can't get their huge commission for selling overpriced halls to the E3 crowd, they still set a precedent for all major game marketing happening at once. (Which, now that I think about it, is ludicrously weird and competitive. How do they do it?) As such, plans are being drawn up for a digital version of E3 to be hosted and to be fair, even if that doesn't ultimately pan, it doesn't cost these companies much to buy a camera, some lights, a green screen and host their own show in the office. Nintendo have been doing it for years, Sony have started it, why shouldn't everyone get on this bandwagon?

The danger of this precedent, a least in the eyes of the E3 showrunners, is that the second these companies realise this, along with how much they've been wasting on renting showrooms all these years, E3 will suddenly become redundant. And part of me says; good, the sooner the better. Back when the AAA market used to stand for high quality games, it meant something important to see them all together at the same event; but now a great game can be made by anyone with the right drive and enough time on their hands, so why should be even bother with these theatrics anymore? If we think back to the most influential games of the last few years then you'd note that a good deal of them were indie titles that never had the benefit of an E3 showcase; Fnaf, (Say what you will about the games, they were influential) Undertale and DDLC are just a few off the top of my head.

So E3 is redundant and E3 is dead. Or to be more precise, E3 2020 is dead. Although I have a suspicion that this death may stick around. Perhaps I'm being a tad unfair and there is a future for E3 in a complete overhaul of their brand, I've said as much before and Geoff Keighley seems to want that very much according to his Tweets, but I think it's far too little too late now. Besides, I'm personally not much of a fan of any one company, especially the ESA, holding control over which high budget game gets seen and which doesn't. It's just like the old Philosopher Kanye said: "No one man should have all that power." (Okay, I'm getting a little off track, I should probably wrap this up.) With mixed feelings I bid adieu to the only tradition that I ever swore to, may something better rise from it's ashes.

Electronic Embarrassment Expo

What's the opposite of a diamond in the rough?

Yesterday I penned a little blog talking about whether or not I think that E3 has run it's course and needs to be done away with, and this isn't a question that has come out of the blue. There was once an age when E3 was such an eminent force in the industry that everyone had to dance to their tune, but that time has passed and it seems now that plain incompetence on the organiser's part is actively repelling away those who are still willing to give the show a shot. I feel that if this year's show ends up being as disastrous as it is shaping up to be, they'll be a serious question rattling around the community about whether or not this traditional should be upheld. (I was never really one for traditions, so I think you can probably figure on my stance.)

As I touched on last time, the big blunder on everyone's mind presently is the way in which the organisers mismanaged the data entrusted to them and ended up accidentally doxxing hundreds of journalists. Now, at the time there were a lot of tech-heads bemoaning how easy the breech was to take advantage of, claiming that the security of the website was terrible, but I've no personal expertise in that department so I cannot attest to those claims. What I can say, however, is that it's rather galling for an event that is so incredibly strict about credentials at the door to fall on it's face with digital security so spectacularly. As a consequence, there is sure to be a large number of the personally affected seriously weighing options about if they want to open themselves up to that possibility of a breach of privacy again. (No one likes playing roulette with their privacy.)

If anyone had managed to fool themselves into thinking that the ESA would manage to get their act together, that illusion was spectacularly shattered earlier last week when the fledgling E3 website domain leaked early. Now I must stress, absolutely nothing private or scandalous was revealed due to this mess-up, it just meant that the public got to see this year's rendition of the press-site. However, this paints the whole operation as a leaky ship that's ready to capsize at any moment, so why would any sane person jump aboard? The way I see it, anyone who isn't literally contractually obligated to attend should really consider staying home and watching this E3 online. (You might miss out on the 'experience', but you also won't have your personal phone number floating around the Internet.) As innocuous as this screw up might seem, there are some who believe that this was the proverbial straw that broke the back of Geoff Keighley

When I ended my TGA coverage I didn't think I'd be talking about Geoff so soon, but he's a guy who never stays out of the headlines for too long. A rockstar of the industry, if there's one figure who everyone associates with gaming, it's Jeff, and that's likely one of the reasons why he has been selected to host certain E3 press conferences over the years. One might even go so far as to call him 'the face of E3'; so it's a tad concerning to hear him dropping out of their year's show due to "What he now knows." (Way to be as vague as humanely possible, Geoff. I'm sure you're NDA overlords shall be pleased) Just to be clear, we have no official word on why it was that Geoff decided to publicly announce his departure from the show on Twitter, but he did seem to mention the website mess-up as an inciting factor. But it could be just as true that Keighley just doesn't like the direction that the show is going in.

Sony too seemed none to pleased with E3's latest reform choices, and it's not hard to see why. The single biggest standout event of last year, the moment that had everyone talking about E3 for the months to come, was the surprise appearance of Keanu Reeves promoting Cyberpunk 2077, a game in which he partially stars. This shocked everyone in the crowd with pure surprise factor and the fact that Keanu seemed genuinely excited about the game he was taking part in. What we saw on that stage was a genuine moment that the general public really resonated with and so it survived in meme consciousnesses for several months later. E3 didn't understand that, however, as some leaked details regarding the upcoming E3 seems to suggest that the organisers are putting their efforts behind hiring various celebrities for the event. (You almost have to wonder if these people have ever been outside, the lack of understanding is that palpable.)

That is just one of the ways that the ESA seem to be planning to change E3 from a trade show into a veritable circus, with games taking a backseat. They also want to up the availability of show access to the public, and use the recognisable faces who frequent E3 to bring folk through the doors. Additionally, they plan to embark on putting together something called 'Que-terainment' to keep folk occupied during long cues. (That last one isn't so directly detrimental to the spirit of E3, but it does sound like it'll be incredibly embarrassing for all parties involved.) All of these steps work to move E3 away from it's sole purpose, to showcase games, and more into a fan meet-up event like no one wants it to be. (Save that crap for PAX.)

At the very least, all of this does mean that the ESA know that the gaming landscape is shifting and are engaging their heads to try and keep E3 relevant, but it seems that the planning comity are in desperate need of brain cells in order to pull of such a shift.  For his part, Geoff Keighley has offered  the events that he promoted for the VGAs as a blueprint for what E3 should be doing. By that I'm referring to the way that the VGAs partnered with Steam in order to bring demo's for titles who were nominated, allowing people to play the games they were seeing without having to lug themselves to a convention hall in California during the summer. (Expensive and uncomfortable) And I have to agree with Geoff here, the future of gaming should be trying to expand into everyone's homes in a manor that just isn't possible for any other medium. If the ESA were to recognise and take advantage of that idea, we'd have something exciting to look forward to in the future of E3.

But perhaps it'll take a colossal flop for the E3 organisers to get their heads on straight, and unless there's been a substantial shift in direction since that info dump, (Which is entirely possible, we heard about E3's changes months ago) they could be headed that way. However, when we have giant publishers like Sony and big faces like Keighley jumping ship, it seems like only a matter of time before everyone else follows suit. Then again, perhaps everyone is wrong and uninterested, uninvested celebrities is exactly what E3 needs to rejuvenate itself. (Although somehow I'm supremely doubtful.) Guess we'll know for sure once Ubisoft drags out Billy Ellish to showcase Just Dance 2021. (Mark my words that will happen.)

Is E3 relevant?

Perhaps it's time to take this one out back.

As the marketing machine behind Id Software begins to rollout and the world starts taking a proper look at Doom Eternal, I can't stop myself from pensively reflecting on how the world of gaming has grown. I've watched a few videos of likeable YouTubers trying their hand at the game and in-depth walkthrough's of certain aspects of the title, and I keep remember the fact that only a few years ago this sort of coverage would be withheld exclusively for the middle months of the year, or more specifically, during and around E3.

Id is by no means the first company to change up their marketing timeline either, recently IGN published the entire intro movie for the 'Final Fantasy 7 Remake' (Which I have not watched and will not. It's only another 2 months, afterall. I can be strong... I can...) and at the end of this month Nintendo will be hosting a celebration of the Pokemon franchise wherein they will be unveiling 'Pokemon Sword and Shield's first Mythical Pokemon. (Finger's crossed that it doesn't require everyone to fly to freakin' Hokkaido in order to redeem it.) The trend I'm trying to highlight here is of game companies finally acknowledging this little tool they have at their disposal called 'The Internet' and making use of it, rather than shaping their whole development/marketing/release schedule around some hyper-expensive trade show in LA.

The question that we are left with, once seeing these mass shifts, is whether or not E3 is still necessary in today's age. I think that this conversation was really sparked, at least for me, last year when it was announced that Sony wouldn't be attending E3 for that year. (Something which they intend to keep up for this year) It was such a huge shock for one of the three titans of the gaming industry to just up and not attend, and folk were left to speculate on why that might be the case. It seemed that things were just starting to reach the point where other studios were growing enough to the stage that they could host their own conferences alongside the platform owners; With Bethesda, EA and Ubisoft holding their own shows, but now that was beginning to unravel and no one quite knew why. In my opinion, the key reasons why Sony have moved away from E3 are two fold, lethargy and money.

That latter point is rather self explanatory, E3 is a pricey event to attend for the uninvited but it is prohibitively expensive for the studios to set up in. Every single spot on the stage floor is competitively priced to all hell and back, as the organisers figure this is justified as their platform is the single biggest marketing stage in the world. And in the past that was true. From the 2000's to the middle 2010's there really wasn't another option to ensure that everyone would know about a game other than attending the highly televised trade show, and the ESA (Entertainment Software Association) knew that they could leverage that exclusivity for as much as they want. This particular fact has been bemoaned by smaller companies such as 'the indie publisher' Devolver Digital who seemed to have crafted a brand around staging E3 shows that directly riff and mock the official E3 shows. Last year they even had a physical presence at E3, or rather outside it in the parking lot, as they explained that the cost of buying a stage would top out that year's advertising budget.

That other point is more of an idea that I've developed from watching these shows over the years, but I still feel that it's had a part to play in today's marketing landscape. Due to the dominance of E3 and it's coverage of so many high profile games, every publisher felt inclined to make their appearance on the show floor or risk the industry forgetting about them. This led to situations where crucial development periods were halted in order to create an E3 demo, even when the demo in question wasn't even representative of the final product (Ubisoft) or times when reveals were made before a game was ready to hit the marketing cycle, resulting in products being teased years before their release. (Final Fantasy XV, Kingdom Hearts 3, The Last Guardian) In recent years we've had times when conferences have been hosted for the sole purpose of 'keeping up appearances' such as with Bethesda's latest shows. It was a huge hamster wheel that I'm sure Sony have been eager to get off for a while, and now they have.

Of course, Sony going their own way isn't as insane of a prospect as it might have been ten years ago, because E3's dominance over gaming news has waned significantly in recent years. Nintendo broke free of the ESA's timescale when they started doing their very own 'Nintendo Direct' live shows whenever the heck they felt like it and Sony have recently followed suit with their 'State of play'. The internet allows for these companies to speak directly to their fans without having to shell out millions on a show floor and due to the vast array of game news sources out there, Sony don't even have to worry if only a couple million people catch the show, because the pertinent information will inevitably spread like wildfire.

Sony has essentially outgrown E3 and have consequently dropped the event like a bad stink, and it makes absolute sense when you think about it. The E3 organisers know this too, just as they know that they stand to lose out on big money if any of the other huge companies drop out as well. Unfortunately, they seem to have no idea how to promote confidence in their brand and are actually managing the absolute opposite. Not long after 2019's E3 there was a huge doxxing scandal where it was revealed that a lack of security on the ESA's part had resulted in the personal details of hundreds of reporters getting leaked; and just last week there was another tech screw-up as this years' E3 official website was made live and leaked to the public early. (Luckily nothing was really spoilt from that one, it was just embarrassing.) They've even managed to actively repulse studios and talent from the show with their plans to make this years' show 'more relevant', but I'll get more into that in another blog.

All I want to answer today is the question; 'Is E3 relevant?', and I think that answer is an obvious: No. The entire idea of 'trade shows' seems to have become increasingly redundant in a world that has become ever more digital and E3 lacks the weight it once held. No one really enjoys the idea of saving all their big game announcements for one huge event wherein there is a substantial chance of being overshadowed, so moving to more direct marketing strategy (if you'll excuse the pun) just seems to be the way of the day. This doesn't mean that E3 is unsalvageable, far from it, but there is a significant amount of restructuring and reformatting required in order to make this brand 'stick' again and given the leaks we've heard about for this year's show, I don't think the current management have the brains to pull that reboot off. (But I'd love to be proven wrong)

Pokemon: Sword and Shield

Remember to pack an umbrella.

Hang on, is this another video game set in England? Has there ever been another point in history where we've been looking at 3 big releases set in the British isles? I don't think so. Forget those hacking simulators set is dystopian London or that terror attack in Piccadilly Circus, (Thanks again, Modern Warfare) this is the game that will truly capture the majesty of England. If by majesty I refer to torrential downpours and fields of evil roaming sheep. (In fairness I cannot confirm whether real English sheep try to attack you upon making eye contact, personally I try not to look at them.) Will the switch's first proper Pokemon title live up to the high bar that Game Freak repeatedly set themselves? Well it's on my home turf, so it better!

Unsurprisingly, I have a history with Pokemon. As, I assume, does everyone who was a child during the syndication of the Ash Ketchum show. Though it may look silly now, back then Pokemon was the highlight of my post-school day in addition to Yugioh, Beyblade, Sonic X and- oh my god, I'm a Weeb, aren't I. But can you really blame kid-me when that original show kicked off with one of most rocking theme tunes ever put to children's TV? Easily the most memorable and best part of the show was Jason Paige's oddly sincere vocals from that guitar-strewn introduction. He made me want to be the very best, like no one ever was. Shame the show was a poorly written mess that insulted my intelligence even back then. I'm not even kidding, I would sit down for the theme tune and then wander off or change the channel; all because the accompanying show was that bad.

When it came to the game, however, I stuck by it a little bit more. Pokemon Yellow was the first handheld game I ever owned for my Game Boy Color and was honestly the last one I'd ever need. Due to the portability of the console, I played that game everywhere and for as long as possible. I remember days when I would play the game from the light of my window in the morning and keep going until it was too dark outside to see the screen anymore. I was enamoured by the collect-athon gameplay, the training of my Pokemon and exploring of the world. I would have days hunting in the safari zone to fill up the blank spots on my Pokedex or training my Pikachu and Nidoran combo team on low level mobs. (In hindsight, an extremely inefficient way to farm EXP.) I was the prototypical Pokemon nut.

But that wasn't the height of my Pokemon addiction, not by a long shot. Later I would get my Game Boy Advance and my favourite entry of the entire Pokemon franchise, (so far) Pokemon Emerald. Emerald seemed to solve every issue I had with the dual releases of the Pokemon generations. (Yeah, that's right! Even as I kid I saw through that cheap gimmick for the cynical marketing ploy is really is.) Emerald wasn't sharing half it's content with another, practically identical product, No, Emerald was uniting the very best elements of Pokemon Ruby and Pokemon Sapphire into one feature compete game! I'm fairly certain that you still couldn't fully complete your Pokedex without utilising the trade feature, which required having real human friends; (What's up with that, Nintendo?) but you could get both of those games legendaries: Groudon and Kyogre; as well as my favourite Pokemon of all time: Rayquaza. And let's be honest, getting the legendaries is all that really matters in the end isn't it? So, with all that to offer would be safe to say the Pokemon Emerald was my dream game, at least for a while? Why yes, yes it would. Why else would I have played that game until by Game Boy Advance broke and then emulated it on every emulator capable device I have owned since? I have that sucker on my phone right now I love it so much.

Pokemon Emerald boasted a vibrancy in its presentation that non of the previous entries had. The Hoenn region was colourful and vast; spanning land and ocean, from subterranean caverns to a burning volcano and allowing you to tread the ocean floor and trudge through fields of ash. It was the first time I truly felt like I was going on an adventure in a video game, and the first time I found out that I loved going on adventures. I even resonated with the delightful simple and easy to comprehend story. Themed around Ruby and Sapphire's villains in a silly plot about eco-extremism that gets out of hand and needs to be resolved by a ten year old. Even now, Emerald remains my favourite of Pokemon's plot lines.

Since then I haven't remained as close to the Pokemon franchise as I would have liked. Not just from growing out of the proposed age demographic (I mean I already told you how I still play Emerald to this day) but more because it moved out of the range of accessibility to me. While I progressed onto console gaming, Pokemon went down the road less travelled; and it made all the difference. In the relationship. Between myself and the franchise.(Forced Scott Peck reference is forced.) The deal was really sealed when Pokemon released on the Nintendo DS; A system, I hesitate to admit, that I have never owned in any form. As such it would be years until I ended up owning a system with a mainstream Pokemon planned for it. 13 years in fact. Because it is now, in 2019, that we have finally crossed paths again and I couldn't be more excited. Like the days before reconnecting with the one who got away, I cannot contain my nerves and anticipation.

Will Sword and Shield Deliver. If what I have seen so far is any indicator: yes. The game looks every bit as pretty and simple as one would expect from a Game Freak creation. Characters are anime-esque 3d sprites that lean heavily off of the visual style established in Sun and Moon, but they are still designed in a way to highlight the world in which they now inhabit. The Male and Female PC's have touches of English and Scottish designs in their garb and both now sport stylish longcoats, prepared for the inevitable downpours we all expect in England. (Though I must say the fact that Nessa wears a bikini seems a little off brand for Britain. It's never the right climate for swimwear over here. Ever.) Galar is realised as hills worth of countryside interspersed with small towns and one bustling capital. I've also noticed touches of steampunk in the building aesthetic too which seems fitting seeing as how the steampunk genre is heavily inspired by England's industrial age.

The meat of the game is, of course, the Pokemon collecting and the battle systems; and these systems have had a few new additions. The one everyone is talking about right now is 'Dynamax'. A mode which is designed to boost the spectacle of Gym fights and raid battles. Both Pokemon are given the chance to balloon to a huge version of themselves and fight with specific powered moves that impart secondary effects. Crowds cheer as hits land and neon lights glitter in the massive stadiums. Game Freak really wanted to bring the epic nature of the Gym battles to life in a way previous games just didn't. (Without several boxes worth of pre-amble.) In a way, I suppose this is Pokemon's version of a 'set peice' moment. Big, loud and memorable. Smaller touches include the way in how trainers can now throw a little bit of dialogue in the middle of a fight, similar to the mid-battle taunting mechanic of Star Wars: The Clone Wars only hopefully a little less awful. The result is a dynamic (See what I did there?) twist upon the time honoured turn based systems Pokemon was founded on.

Okay, so maybe Pokemon Sword and Shield isn't poised to rewrite the way we see Pokemon games going forward, but it is showing small improvements that the diehard will appreciate. That's more then you can say about some yearly sports titles. Of course there will always be touches that I don't necessarily like that others will; such as the way how random encounters have been replaced with in-world sprites letting you know exactly where your enemy is. But in the end, none of these changes are big enough to break the experience or make it, really. Fans of Pokemon will likely love Sword and Shield and those who dislike it probably won't have their minds changed. I think I've made my stance clear, I'm ready to jump back into my favourite collect-athon franchise once again.

The Outer Borderworlds.

Cowboys in space... Kinda

It bothers me to say, but The Outer Worlds just doesn't pop for me. That bothers me because Obsidian's latest RPG looks like everything I want out of my gaming experience, so why can't I get excited? I will get the game eventually, and I'm sure it'll change my mind, but I can't help but feel worried for its success if there are others who feel the way I do. After watching oodles of content regarding the game, I think I may have come across the key reason why this has failed to 'blow-up-my-skirt', so to speak. It looks too familiar.

Similarities are to be expected, it's important to note, from a game that co-game director, Leonard Boyarsky describes as 'kind of a spiritual successor' to Fallout: New Vegas. But that should, in no way, be a bad thing. Fallout: New Vegas was the entry in the Fallout franchise that many, including myself, hail as being the best. It had the best narrative, the most authentic world, the most relatable companions and the most amount of freedom for being who you want to be in the post-apocalyptia. This was achieved because the team who made it, Obsidian Games coincidentally, were comprised of many of the same people who designed the original two Fallouts, thus they could marry the quirky tone and provoking themes of the original games (Mostly from Fallout 2) and imbue them with the liberating open world advancements of Fallout 3. New Vegas was wild, challenging and memorable. (And also one of my favourite games of all time.)

With all that in mind, surely a spiritual successor from the same developers would be right up my alley. Heck, more then that; I should be ranting and raving about The Outer Worlds to anyone who'll listen. Yet from that very first trailer I found myself cool towards the project and a little bit underwhelmed. Since then I have warmed a bit, (through sheer force of will), but this title has never entered my thoughts when I pontificate on 'The most promising titles of 2019'. My approach has remained, 'Oh, I'll probably pick that up a year or two down the line.' instead of 'My lifeblood will cease to flow if I'm not playing this as soon as humanly possible!' (I may take games a little too seriously...) Put plainly, I just don't care. And I should care, darn it! I should care a whole lot.

My first disappointment came in the reveal trailer when I heard the first two jokes fall flat. I've watched the trailer again since and they whilst weren't as bad as they seemed during last E3, they still weren't exactly zingers. Two, almost non-sequitur, jokes that don't really sing to the style of prime Obsidian script writing. I know what you're thinking, 'What are you, a joke critic?' I shouldn't have gotten so hung up over lame jokes but it just reflects badly on the whole product that this is the foot they choose to lead with. First impression matter and if my first impression is "Huh, Borderlands 3's jokes were a bit punchier", Then I'm already not focused on your game. Speaking of-

Another big issue I have with the core concept of The Outer Worlds is the way in how the world seems like a less vibrant version of Borderlands' Pandora. Just look at the similarities; They both take place on the outskirts of civilized galactic society on backwater planets that no one cares about; Said worlds are valued only by the slew of corporate entities trying to carve the place up for its resources, rolling over the inhabitants as they go; and the player takes the role of an unaffiliated mercenary shunted onto this backwater planet and set on a chaotic collision course with that planet's elite. From the basic setup these two games could almost be twins. The problem is, from that reveal trailer all that was established for us was the basics. So then, naturally, I began comparing The Outer Worlds and Borderlands 3; Graphically, The Outer Worlds looks a bit dated and Borderlands looks stylistic and colourful; In terms of gameplay The Outer Worlds looks... satisfactory, and Borderlands looks fast-paced and competitive; and when it comes down to simple brand recognition, Borderlands was every bit the adventure I'd come to love from Gearbox and Outer Worlds- Well, I wasn't sure what to make of it. I didn't exhibit any of the soul I expected from Obsidian and so I didn't 'recognise' that trailer, for want of a better word. And so, through fault of the trailer and my own, I had hyped myself for Borderlands 3 and promptly forgot about The Outer Worlds, in no time flat.

Had this been any other game, that would have been the end of the story. They failed to impress me the first time, now I can shift my attentions onto Cyberpunk 2077 or Final Fantasy 7. But this was an Obsidian game, so every now and then I would see some gameplay pop up and think 'I really ought to give that game a second chance.' Afterall, this is a brand new IP from a talented developer and so it is unfair to compare it with another well established brand on its third mainline entry. (Despite how similar they look from the outset.) And so in the spirit of loving games, I tried to love this one. Honestly, I'm still not sure if I'm there yet.

The marketing for 'The Outer Worlds' has been very candid in the time since the reveal. Almost as though Obsidian knew how this game would have a difficult time standing out unless they made an effort to establish exactly what it was about for the public. Whatever the reason, it means we have a slew of content to look through and a, seemingly, solid basis of what the game entails. As I understand it, The Outer Worlds is a science fiction game set in the Wild West of space. Players take the roll of a blank slate landing in a solar system run by corporate entities and must navigate the game world interacting with revolutionaries, companies, everyday people and all manner of duelling interests, as they try to carve out a place for themselves in the space frontier.

Watching some of the gameplay videos have alleviated my budding concerns for one aspect of  the game: The writing. One of the playthroughs took us through the beautiful city of Byzantium, to a live reading rehearsal for a movie role. As the player travelled through the colourful facade to their destination, we see glimmers of the humorous Obsidian charm that always seems to land, like their collection of silly, futurama-esque sci-fi movie posters that seem to hark back to the days of Plan 9 and over melodramas. After that, we actually get to see the rehearsal; a heroic standoff between the hero and villain. (With live ammunition in play in order to stay 'authentic' for the scene.) What follows is a great back and forth between a lead actor who struggles to get his lines straight and the player's team who mockingly play along, cognizant of the fact that they are about to blow him away. It's all snappy, funny and likeable. Just like I remember from the 'New Vegas' days.

Another important highlight would be way that the combat is handled in The Outer Worlds. Seeing as the moment-to-moment gunplay doesn't seem all that special, Obsidian have decided to work on some of the systems at play during gunfights to help flesh it out. Most notably, with the tactical time dilation system which, much like it sounds, allows the player to slow down time in order to take precision shots. (Like a more fluid version of Fallout's V.A.T.S.) The team have explained that time dilation was established in order to bridge the gap between tactical players and action-game players, allowing people to slow down time and take combat at their own pace if they so choose. Similar to how and why Square Enix established their tactical system for Final Fantasy 7's remake. Of course, then there needs to be a reason to shoot specific body parts, and that is where the hitboxes come in. The Outer Worlds allows you to focus on certain parts of your enemy in order to weaken them in specific ways; Shoot them in the head to blind them, The legs to cripple them, the crotch to... weaken them? (Sounds accurate.) These elements all add up to create a different take on gunplay that may not feel the freshest of anything on the market but carries enough depth to look, and perhaps feel, distinct.

Lastly, I've decided that some of the core design features that The Outer Worlds boasts are worth checking out. Note, I do not mean the aesthetic design; I actually really dislike all of the visual designs I've seen so far: guns, armour, tech, nothing looks striking or memorable to me. Rather I mean the game design choices. Like the Flaw's system, for example. As you play through the game, it keeps track on the things that happen to you and your team and once you cross a threshold the game will present you with a Flaw. Flaw's are a totally optional mechanic whereupon you accept a permanent debuff stringent to a flaw-specific situation in return for a free perk point you can use to improve your character. It's a nice balancing act to allow your character to get stronger as the progress whilst ensuring that the game itself gets tougher in kind. And it's optional, allowing players to opt in or out as they please. This concept of player choice is key to The Outer Worlds and, indeed, Obsidian as a whole. Of course we've seen the branching paths built into level design and the multiple quest branches at key mission moments; but Obsidian are adamant to assure us that every step of the way we can play as by-the-book as we want or balls-to-the-walls insane as we want. The claim was even made that you can go through the game killing everyone you meet before they even have the chance to speak to you, bar one NPC, and still reach the end. And that one NPC has to survive in order to give you some incentive to reach the end, I assume. It's the kind of player choice that the team have to move heaven and earth to accommodate for, but the kind that can really pay off for the player if well executed.

You have probably figured out by now that I am very much torn on this game. On one hand I love Obsidian's work and am genuinely excited for a lot of the cool things this game has to offer, on the other hand the game looks drab and, in some places, uninspired. I do owe the creators of one of my favourite games of all time, Obsidian, the benefit of the doubt; but I can't promise I'll be there contributing to those, all important, week 1 sales. I just don't need to be. My planet-hopping mercenary fix is being met by the better realised, Borderlands 3; and my choice based RPG fix is going to be be fulfilled by the more promising, Cyberpunk 2077. I  just don't need The Outer Worlds and I really hope enough people disagree with me, that The Outer Worlds doesn't need me.

Borderlands is back.

After all this time.

When the original Borderlands hit shelves back in 2009, I was one of the flocking masses that rushed to pick it up. I didn't really have a choice, discourse of the time told that Borderlands was the quintessential cooperative multiplayer game. If you didn't have it, you'd be missing out. Borderlands had it all, great gameplay, millions of guns, cool class themed powers and more bosses than you could fit into a strategy guide. Every gamer I knew was absolutely crazy for it; it was loud, brash, crude, violent, vast and funny in all the right ways. I got my copy on the promise of the amazing cooperative experiences that people were raving about; briefly forgetting about my lack of friends. Yeah, I didn't really ever play with others. But luckily the game itself was a good enough in single player game to keep me hooked on it's vices for about a week before I got bored, put it down, and didn't pick it up again for years. Kids, am I right?

Since then, I've started to realise how hard of a sell a game like Borderlands was at the time. A game with no real narrative incentive, no real stakes for failure, without any real diversity regarding it's gameplay; You just shoot stuff. The end. Back then terms like 'Looter shooter' didn't exist and the concept of basing an entire gameplay loop around the economy of weapon stats seemed a little bit hollow. A lot of people I know, including myself, dropped off the game rather quickly after the honeymoon period. We concluded it was just another shallow product that shut us up for a bit before we went back to Modern Warfare 2. Because that was the real game. (On an unrelated note, MW2 is another game I never played online. I know. Heretic!). But Borderlands didn't just go away. Some people came back to it years down the line with a whole new appreciation. Perhaps it was the timeless, cell-shaded aesthetic or the meaty, well balanced gunplay; or maybe it was the gun-collecting gameplay loop that we initially chastised. Something about that game drew people back. And when they got back, they were hooked. That's the thing about Borderlands, then and now; You either 'get it' or you don't. If you don't, no number of retrospective articles or trusted recommendations can win you over; you will not enjoy the game at that place in your life. When you 'get it'; when you fall for the silly, irreverence that Borderlands emanates; you fall hard.

When Borderlands 2 rolled out in 2012, I was a bit more cautious. I remembered how the first game had seemed fun at first but ended seeming like a repetitive grind after not too long. Reviews, however, were glowing; everyone wanted to sing this game's praises. Apparently every flawed aspect from the original was fixed; the game's visuals were no longer monotone but now they were beautiful and diverse, Guns were no longer samey and boring but distinct and exciting, and the story no longer distracted from the gameplay but reinforced and transformed it. I didn't remember having any of these gripes with the previous game; but then, I didn't remember what it was exactly that I didn't like about the first game. I found it boring, I thought, and repetitive; but I wasn't sure why and in what ways. Maybe these were the reasons why, I decided. Maybe I'll jump into this next game and finally love it like the other kids do. But not at launch, I was never that rich.

Next year, I picked up two very different games at a second hand shop; Borderlands 2 and Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen. Two games which could be seen as a little polar opposite to each another. Probably why the games ended up fighting for my time. On one hand, there was Borderlands 2; a sequel that exhibited whole heaps of improvements from the last game, A huge step forward in every aspect from the original. On the other, Dragon's Dogma; A brand new fantasy adventure that wowed me with it's meaningful day/night cycle, innovative grasping mechanics that transformed the combat and a cast of faithfully captured mythological creatures that all felt challenging to face. In the end the inevitable choice I made between the two was a no brainier. In my defence great fantasy games are hard to find! So I dropped off on Borderlands, once again.

So did I ever 'get it'? Sure. When I picked up 2015's The Handsome collection. (Aren't I Mr. 'Late adopter'.) Maybe it was because of my brief, fiery liaison with a little game know as Destiny. Destiny was perhaps the first game to popularize the 'Looter shooter' branding, wearing the tag as a badge of honour defining their playstyle. Destiny rocked the gaming world when it came out and introduced everyone to the basics of the Loot-shoot genre, under the pretense that they had pioneered the system. At the time I did fall for Destiny and her season pass before she broke my heart with The Taken King. (But that's a whole other, much more bitter, story.) In my rebound I ended up with the game I had discarded so long ago, The original Borderlands.

This time I 'got it'. I felt the urge to keep collecting that loot, to keep building my DPS, to keep honing by build to its zenith. I blasted through the campaign and onto the, much superior, DLC. I ground my head against the Underdome, searched for Cyans in Knoxx's armoury (unsuccessfully) and soloed Crawmerax the Invincible. I saw everything and did everything. Except get a freaking Cyan. I had keyed into that 'je ne sais quoi' that Borderlands fans had been trying to tell me about for years and I was hooked. Needless to say, I moved onto the Handsome collection and fully appreciated Borderlands 2 for the first time. It became my mission to go as far as I could on my own, collect as many rare weapons and slay as many raid bosses as my stubborn self could handle. I can't explain to you why all this mattered to me so much, just that it did. If you don't understand, then you won't unless you feel it for yourself.

Due to my late coming to the franchise I haven't had to endure the agonizing 7 year wait for the sequel. Heck, with Ultimate Vault Hunter mode, Overcharge levels and the surprise release of 'Commander Lilith and the fight for Sancutary', I'm still not done with Borderlands 2. With that said, I can still get excited to see the franchise return and innovate for a new console generation. Or rather, for the current console generation, as it has taken them this long to get a game out for us.What have we got in this one? Vaulting and sliding? Game changers!

Observing the gameplay and trailer reveals that dropped before and during this E3 has been incredibly interesting, still being an active player of the last title. Whilst some have complained about how the game looks identical to its predecessors and how Gearbox hasn't even touched upon the basics, I can clearly see how that is the passage of time clouding folk's recollection. Visually, Borderlands 3 looks stunning compared to the others; textures and colours pop in a manner they've never done on Pandora before. Shooting has also been improved upon with weightiness to movement and recoil making the guns seem more powerful than they ever did in BL2.

Those looking for fundamental changes, however, may be disappointed. Borderlands 3 shares a lot of DNA with the last two games, sometimes looking like a 'New Vegas'-style inbetween title rather than a full blown sequel. Of course that couldn't be the case because they already did that with the Pre-Sequel. (A game I cannot get into and I have no idea why...) I suppose the question that fans need to ask themselves, is whether or not they are okay with more of the same. Borderlands 2 holds up so well today, and the slew of post launch content that game ended up with makes the bundle package of 'The Handsome Collection' an absolute steal. If Gearbox want to just do that again with a little bigger scope and some reworked systems then it isn't really the worst possible thing that could happen for a sequel, is it?

At least we'll finally be getting off of Pandora. (Oh, and screw Elpis. I hated the 'moon walk' crap from that game.) Borderlands 3 will finally allow us to take off into space and go to 5 different planets, one of which being the long talked about Promethea. Finally, an urban setting in Borderlands! Maybe this time we'll finally feel like we are travelling to whole new places. Borderlands 2's icy intro was nice and all, but by the end of the game Gearbox literally made us walk over the same plots of land from the first game, kind of defeating the point of 'switching it up'. Now, with variety in mind for the creation of every planet, no two skylines should look the same, ideally.

One element I'm really excited for, personally, is the change to how characters play. Previously, your choice of player character was decided by the passives they would get and the play style you wanted to lean towards. Ultimate skills were fun, but the focus was on the moment-to-moment gameplay and thus flashy class powers easily went underutilized and under appreciated. This game, however, Gearbox have decided to change things up by giving the player 3 unique powers for each Vault Hunter. The effect is very reminiscent of 'hero shooters' like Overwatch; giving cooldown dependant small powers that change up the way you handle each and every encounter, meaning that you instantly know who you're playing as without having to wait for a voice line. For my money, this will have the most impact in multiplayer. (Which, of course, I'll never play.) With these distinctive powers thrown into play, team play is going to feel alot more complementary rather than cooperatively competitive.

But all those character-unique combat improvements all just build upon the combat system rather then define it. At the end of the day the meat of a 'Looter Shooter' is the diversity of the loot you shoot with. This appears to be the department wherein Gearbox have made the most steps forward. Whilst it's true that Borderlands 2 had a ton of really unique weapons, most of those were found in tiers Rare and above. The bulk majority of BL2's loot were mostly diversified by manufacturer quirks rather than individual quirks. This time Gearbox has aimed to expand the gun pool once again by ending crazy modifiers to their quirky modifiers. Like a Teidore gun that is discarded once empty but also bounces about with an explosion on every landing or the walking gun turret from the reveal trailer. Borderlands 3 will provide one of most unique feeling arsenals that gaming has to offer, reinforcing the addictive collectability of loot and comedic stylings of the developer's creativity.

Speaking of, comedy is another core aspect of the Borderlands formula. One that is largely subjective. Since the release of Borderlands 2, Gearbox has really established the comedic style of their cell-shaded IP. The games are obnoxious, childish and a little bit puerile at times but they bring it all together with an oddly authentic charm. Whilst these elements should clash and burn, they instead compliment each other to create the unique world of Pandora. (Or at least they did for BL2 and TellTale's 'Tales from the Borderlands'.) Of course, as with any form of humor, not everyone gels with this brand of comedy. Some find it grating and will likely find Borderlands 3 slightly unbearable because of it. But I have maintained a soft spot for the wacky crew of Vault Hunters and their manic, neurotic CL4P-TP unit. Perhaps it comes from watching the series grow from the occasionally funny first entry to the genuinely hilarious 'Tales from the Borderlands'. Whatever the reason, I resonate with Borderlands humor and from the trailers and gameplay I've seen, I can feel that same Borderlands essence here from the last game. (Excluding the pre sequel.)

Like I said, Borderlands 3 offers more of the same but in the style and attitude that only Borderlands can muster. The jump from the second game to this may not be as revolutionary as from the original to 2, but it doesn't need to be in order for Borderlands 3 to compete against the market. Borderlands easily surpass it's competitors in the core defining components of the 'Looter shooter' genre and now it's finally starting to catch up in terms of raw gameplay too. Providing that Gearbox stick to the example they set themselves with Borderlands 2, Borderlands 3 will easily become another high value classic experience. Word of mouth will spread, more people will come to the franchise and maybe, if their lucky, they might just 'Get it' too. 

Greedfall. The Nature strikes back.

Bet you weren't expecting me to have this game on the docket.

Heck, I don't even where this game came from, but it looks like it'll scratch an itch and so I'll talk about it. Which itch is that? That would be my ever irritable itch for RPG's. You see, Role Playing Games were the first genre of games whose traits I learned to recognise; That is because for a very long time RPG's were my favourite genre of games. Looking back now I realise what a broad selection that actually covers. But back then when I was eager to play any role other than myself, the height of entertainment was stepping into another's shoes, no matter how involved the end experience ended up truly being.

RPG's are a safe bet for games. After all, gamers have been playing RPG's forever, years before video games ever started becoming popular and decades before any mainstream buzz picked up. Go back to the tabletop days of Dungeons and Dragons and you'll see that gamers have been seeking to immerse themselves in fantastical worlds of wonder and surprise since gaming began. Although, for my part  I've never had enough like-minded friends to dive into DnD, It only solidifies how much I need me a good RPG.

That brings me around to the indie development studio, 'Spiders' and their upcoming RPG adventure Greedfall. Being one of the smaller development studios in the RPG landscape, Spiders understands the importance of single player experiences where bigger entities, who shall go unnamed, struggle to get it down; hence why Greedfall rings with me straight away. This isn't 'Spiders' first rodeo, either, they made the fantasy adventure 'Bound by Flame' and the sci-fi RPG 'Technomancer'. So they are used to working on these smaller RPG's that are imbued with personal passion.


For me I've started to wonder if the RPG genre even belongs to big budget companies, of late. I mean, it seems like a simple mathematical equation, more money and resources allow you to devote more on the project that should lead to a better final result. So if that is indeed the case, then why do these big RPG's keep getting it wrong time and time again. Final Fantasy XIII lost all narrative flow too early to get invested, Fallout 4 lacked the series' heart and soul and Mass Effect Andromeda was missing so much, a solid story, great design, likable characters, etc. So many of these big budget RPGs crash and burn, whether due to development issues or too-many-cooks-in-the-kitchen syndrome, the results are the same. A substandard product.

Of course not every high budget RPG is a mess, nor is publisher backing a death sentence, just look at The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt or Skyrim. But in terms of games that make me care in the manner a great RPG does, success for these projects are staring to seem like the exception rather than the rule. Just look at Deltarune, Octopath Traveller and I am Setsuna; All relatively recent indie titles that all offered much more condensed experiences than those, 'hundred hour RPG' titles that are touted today. And yet those three titles have elicited more emotional response from me, and others, than those bigger games managed in all their days of playtime. Am I sounding like a downer? I don't mean to. I just mean to hail the impact that independent titles can have. The precision focus and mastery that smaller projects can hone in on can be so much more powerful than the 'catch-all umbrella' that modern AAA titles are always built under.

That brings me to Greedfall. I certainly did big this one up didn't I? To start off, no; from what I have seen this doesn't look like one those emotional roller coasters like the titles I just mentioned. However, it does look like the kind of quirky, cool little RPG romp that the bigger studios just aren't making anymore.

Greedfall is a historical-fantasy RPG set in a distorted version of 17th century Europe. You are placed at the height of the explorer boom, a time wherein the untraveled world stretched out for ever and forever, to intentionally misconstrue a line from Tennyson. Greedfall follows the colonisation of the new world as represented in the island: Teer Fradee; if that new world itself didn't want to be colonised, that is. Everything seems to be out to kill you for your imperialistic ways from the natives all the up to horrific, monstrous abominations of nature and bark.
Wait, what was that last part?
Well, you see that's where the 'Fantasy' comes into play. Greedfall pits the players against, what appear to be manifestations of Teer Fradee's will to F you up. And, like any good RPG, Greedfall expects you to make hard choices about your allegiances as the consequences of your actions start to have tangible effects on the world and the people who inhabit it.

Artistically, Greedfall developer 'Spiders' are attempting to capture the style of the 17th century rather than the its accurate details. They describe their influence as a mix between Baroque art and Flemish painting. Being an expert of neither, I can merely attest to the almost sepia-like tinge to the colour palette that does invoke the paintings of the time in every freeze frame I've seen. The design elements that really stood out to me, however, were the monsters. From what little they've shown it seems as though the team were influenced by a certain Capcom title; and they are certainly a fine muse to have. The creatures we've seen either embody this shamanistic aesthetic of bark and leaves or this incredibly well-realised, faux zoological approach that invents fantastical beasts that look like they could acutally exist. Making the world seem so real is going to make it harder to burn it all down for raw resources when the time comes.

Like FernGully meets Monster Hunter, Greedfall seems to be asking you whether or not you have an ethical quandary with unchecked expansionism and if you can stomach to look its victims in the eyes afterwards. Of course, things aren't so cut-and-dry as that; folk back are home are being ravaged by the Malichor plague and the fact that this Teer Fradee appears to be untouched by the malady seems to indicate the key to a cure might be there. Does that mean we will have moments of deciding whether to choose between our family back home or our new friends on the island? Probably. And I look forward to getting torn up over those choices when the time comes.

Combat looks like the weakest aspect, as it tends to be with these 'Spiders' RPGs. It might be judging a book by its cover a little bit, but the gameplay shown makes the hack and slash fighting look like Dark Souls-lite. And know that I loathe to make the 'Dark Souls' comparison. But what the heck else am I going to think when the UI is literally laid out the same? Movement looks stiff and contact looks floaty. But hey, I played through Morrowind so I can double down on the fact that; bad combat does not a bad game make.

I find myself anticipating this understated little gem in the same why I anticipated Divinity 2 back in the day. As a small game that encompasses a large adventure. Something that many of the big titles seem to have forgotten how to do, lately. Where Square Enix looks to be trying to retelling the, originally one game story, of Final Fantasy 7 over a ten year period (like it's freakin' Ben Hur); Spiders will be delivering what is likely going to be a 10-20 hour game that is much more to the point but just as effective when it gets there.