Rockstar and remasters: Friendship ended

 Now GTA VI is my best friend

I've said it before and I'm always one for repeating myself annoyingly; we live in the age of remasters and reboots; tis the god's honest truth. Everyone wants to slap their game back on the store shelves with a shiny lick of paint and ask for a repurchase, to the point where it's becoming something of a trending meme. In fact, I just read a reader's editorial wherein someone seemed to think that this adherence to 'game preservation' was holding back the progression of games as a medium and he had half of a point- although he seemed to fall into the trap that 'new means good' which so many do. Although by that very same merit, 'old' doesn't automatically mean 'good' either; and there have been a few remaster jobs that have me wondering 'Really? Is this worth it?'. (I mean come on: 'Stubbs the Zombie'? Even 'Destroy all Humans' is a questionable choice when you really think about it. The games were really 'of their time') But I don't think of this remaster trend is all bad, or even 'the lazy way out' as that Editorial concluded, I think it's an valuable experiment into preserving actual quality.

Which is to say, the remakes we've seen during this wave have been incredible, and some of the remasters aren't half bad either. Unlike with movies, when a game studio gets to work remaking a game from twenty years prior the results are almost always a totally transformed experience that brings the original to life in an unimaginable glowup. And a few of the older glow-ups do, very much, rewrite some properties that have a grow a little long-in-the-tooth so that they can dance the ball along with their contemporaries or sometimes even just stand toe-to-toe with the best of the day. Game preservation isn't some piddling lazy-boy project, and if you honestly think the solution is 'just buy the originals discs and get the old hardware to play it on', you're probably missing the point. Most game preservation supporters aren't hardcore purists with thousands to spend on broken down antiquated hardware just so that can run the original Mario in piss-poor resolution, they're just fans who want the ability to slap on their old games and play an old classic, but they can't due to the unique hardware evolutionary system of our particular industry. Remasters are an elegant solution to that conundrum. Or at least they're supposed to be.

Ideally, when everything goes to plan, all a remaster needs to do is revamp the visual fidelity of the game in question to meet the standards of the day. Or if that's not possible, at least be better than what was before. Sometimes that's a lot easier said than done, depending on the original software in the make-over seat, and a touch-up performance might bleed into a full blown remake. But it takes a special kind of screwy to embark on a full remake, in a new engine, and totally ruin the originals forever in a godawful cluster of a remake. XIII did just that, to the point where the remake is due for a remake sometime in the near future; no, I'm not making that up. And, even more famously, Grove Street Games did it with the 'Grand Theft Auto Trilogy Definitive Edition' collection. A true dumpster fire remake that burnt a legacy of three of the most influential games ever released and robbed the originals from digital store fronts forever more. (Unless you use the awful Rockstar Launcher. But if you do use that, what are you even doing?)

When all this went down and the collection dropped from such a height it smashed into a near unplayable mess that demanded several months of bug fixing, it really seemed like Rockstar Games were totally oblivious to the carnage. Fans raged, communities burned, pretty much the Act 3 world state of San Andreas played out across the Internet; and Rockstar just bragged about the sales figures in their earnings call. Grove Street Games name might be mud in the community after their botch hit job, but they were always kind of a running joke anyway. It seemed like, as has happened many times before, the money spoke louder than the protests and Rockstar were happy to just ignore the controversy as a minor blip on their sales figures. Mark one against the little guy. Except, according to an industry informant who has provided reliable leaks in the past; it would seem that this debacle actually did have a significant effect on the Rockstar marketing machine.

You see, even before this trilogy was a gamete scooped off the floor of a public port-a-potty, rumours were swirling about another potential Rockstar Remaster, to the tune of Red Dead Redemption! (Wait, back up for a second- what the hell was that analogy? What is wrong with me?) And after those remasters, a more dour prediction arose that Grove Street Games would next be aiming their dubious sights at a remaster of the beloved Grand Theft Auto IV. At that point most were just hoping that Rockstar would see their errors and get a better equipped internal team to handle such a task, but if we're to believe this leaker; the failure of the Definitive Trilogy might have axed these games entirely. Or at least, he seems to confirm that the bulk of Rockstar is refocused on Grand Theft Auto 6 and not, crucially, on the 'remake/remaster' grind.

Now that could mean that Rockstar are eyeing someone else to come in and mount these more difficult remasters, given how Grove Street Games couldn't even handle games that still run on modern hardware. (Imagine giving them an enigma like Red Dead Redemption which is so ramshackle that Rockstar don't even know how to port it to PC!) Or, it could mean that the utter fan rejection of the trilogy scared Rockstar brass so fully that they're looking totally into the future and not behind them. Which is great news! I think the last thing we needed was a Grove Street style hit-job on their classic cowboy shoot-em-up; but it's also a bit of a shame because... well... Red Dead Redemption is literally unplayable on anything other than it's base systems. Seriously, fans of that game could really do with a remake considering that RDR2 was a different and slower style of game altogether. There's a market there which Rockstar is effectively giving up on.

In a situation like this I think it's important to remember that the very art of remastering was not, in itself, the villain here. It was the half-arse job pulled by a team who bit off far more than they could chew and weren't vetted nearly enough. (Which they could have easily been, given that they had literally botched the Mobile ports of all those games to various degrees previously. Someone just needed to actually play those games and go "Oh god, these are terrible. Let's hire people with working eyes next time!") I don't think there needs to a split down the middle of 'either we focus on working on the future or securing the past', that seems like such a reductive all-or-nothing mentality that precludes dexterity and nuance. And anyway: "only a Sith deals in absolutes."

Still, if I were held at gunpoint and forced without any shades of grey or shadows of doubt to hide behind, to hop off the fence and choose a side: I would prefer that Rockstar focus on GTA 6 than on remastering their storied collection. For no other reason than the fact that this is Rockstar; the company who's wake invariably rewrites the book on open world games everytime they make a new one. Like James Cameron, they dive under the ocean to raise that bar. Right now Rockstar are literally the only big developer we can trust to deliver what they claim they can, and as sad as that is we all need that certainty right now. Maybe we'll get that RDR remake sometime down the line, heck, maybe to coincide with the release of Red Dead Redemption 3 to probably cap that budding trilogy off. As for the beloved GTA 4 remaster? Meh, I don't think anyone's losing sleep over missing out on that.

I'm gonna rant about GTA online for a bit, forgive me.

 You probably wasn't even born!

So it's been a while since I've talked about GTA Online, and even longer since I've played it. And that's because I've well and crossed that inevitable point where a game just evolves so much that it isn't the same one you remember. Heck, back when I used to play the game the key grind spot mission of the whole game was still Rooftop Rumble. And I remember it back before the nerf, now I hear that the game was removed from the mission rotation for 'tweaks' only to never return! How the heck am I supposed to return to a game where I can't blow up a garage full of nobodies in 5 seconds flat and then quickly snipe the escape car that spawns with that same flick of the thumb I'd rehearsed a million times previously? (It's practically not even the same game at this point!)

But like my very own quipu, my time with the game hangs around my neck and the knots in it's strings are testaments to the days I must have killed grinding it's shores for the next released supercar. (Never realising at the time the sheer astronomical buy-in prices each subsequent expansion would release with, to the point where that approach would eventually become untenable.) But even though that is a past long behind in a game I now actively wish for the demise of (because that's the only way we're getting GTA VI and we all know it) I still find myself keeping an eye on the old grounds there, just to keep up with the good old days. (Every past day is great when you actively choose to forget the bad.) That's how I knew about the casino update, that's how I've second-hand experienced the eye-roll worthy Cayo Perico heist, and that's how I've heard of this new update coming our way.

Yet I feel it's important first that I introduce GTA Online to you, as a story. I know, I know, you're thinking "What story? It's just online mishaps loosely tied together my missions and updates" And whilst that is largely true, there's actually something of an origin narrative many forget about. You see, GTA Online tells the story of a low level thug who gets thrown into Los Santos before the events of Grand Theft Auto V and finds themselves quickly (and somewhat unnaturally) swallowed up by the criminal underworld. (Seriously, how the hell does Lamar personally know every criminal in Los Santos? That's straight uncanny!) This is important as a set-up, because it gives players a sense that everything they are experiencing is separate from the main game world, not just in character but in time too. Setting it before the story is important to, because with how much of a starring role GTA cities always have in the narrative, the world after the story is invariably one shaped and owned by that game's protagonist. So it has to be set before in order to give online criminals a chance to make their mark.

And how do we know for certain that this online mode is set before the events of GTA V? I mean, aside from Rockstar remarks made at the time of release indicating such, we actually have verifiable evidence from the sorts of missions that you take from certain people. (Spoilers for GTA V, one of the most played games in the world, ahoy) For one, we take on Martin Madrazo as a client for some of our missions, and he's supposed to be in hiding after the events of GTA V for fear of Trevor cutting him up into little pieces and eating him. Then there's the fact that the player character of GTA Online is referenced by Lester in GTA V, when he claims that he knows someone who might be helpful for a heist set-up but then dismisses that idea as they are "Too unpredictable". And then there's the bunch of base Online-game run-ins you have with character's from the single player game which wouldn't be possible after the events of the story. Trevor, for one, given the fact that the multiple endings of GTA allows you to pick who lives and who dies, so if this Trevor was from after the events of the main game then that would sully the illusion of that ending choice. (For which, if we're being honest, Ending A makes the most sense and is probably the most poetic way for the narrative to close out. B makes no logical sense whatsoever and C is too fan-fictiony.)

So why is any of this important? Well, it becomes relevant with the brand new GTA content drop which is finally returning a character to the franchise that the stories have felt naked without: Doctor Dre. (I just don't know how anyone can justify playing GTA without 'Ain't Nuthin' But A G Thang' in the background.) No, actually it's Franklin Clinton, the middle child of the GTA V main characters and the only person who canonically survives the events of the game no matter which ending you choose. And this isn't prequel Franklin, oh no; he is explicitly portrayed as a successful retired criminal for several years that is looking for a little more excitement. This is clearly a return to the character, indicating that all the time since GTA V has passed in the game world and the next expansion is set in current year. (huh, I missed the Covid update.)

In fact, the implication that things were going this way was first bought up to me with that Casino update I talked about earlier, which introduced a whole new skyscraper to the Los Santos skyline as though that's something no one would have noticed in the main game. And then there was the heist from that very update wherein a careless piece of dialogue with a side character from the main game reveals not only that this story had jumped several years beyond the events of the main game at some undetermined point, but that she was 'nearly killed' during an action scene that only occurs in Ending C. A double confirmation to side up with the Smuggler's Run update, during which Trevor is referred to as being alive (Only in Ending C) and the update before that had someone directly state the year as being 2017, which is four years after when the GTA main story is canonically set.

So does this mean there's some sort of clever narrative manipulation behind the scenes that is deftly being wielded by ingenious world builders? It doesn't really feel that way, does it? A slip-up bit of dating here, a misplaced character there, directly stating which ending is canon thus robbing emphasis out of your main story somewhere along the line. It all comes across as a little... accidental. One might even go so far as to say 'incompetent'. Which would match the quality of effort put into keeping the GTA Online ecosystem going, at least when it comes to all of those polishing details that make every new Rockstar game near perfect masterpieces. If you'd never played a Rockstar game outside of GTA Online you would seriously struggle to understand why this company is considered one of the best in the industry today. And that's not just because of the rampant tech errors or the server issues or the cheating menu problems. It's just the presentation. The gameplay is fun, go figure considering it's largely just recycling the building blocks that the main development team left over, but the story writing, world development and characters verge from average to mediocre caricatures of lobotomised lab mice.

I think that this upcoming update is the literal first time that Rockstar have just come out and confirmed that GTA Online is now set in modern day, although by featuring Franklin it almost seems like they're trying to maintain some illusion of 'the multiple endings are still real'. Why bother? Just call up Steven Ogg and Ned Luke already for one of your silly unrewarding Online heist missions, bring the gang back together. (Although, after stealing several hundred million out of the Union Depository, one might wonder why they'd get together to do a much more dangerous heist in exchange for two or three million at most.) Still, at the end of the day we may mock the sometimes amateurish job that the Online team does of handling GTA Online, but when they do a job right they do it right, and finally bringing back everyone's favourite GTA character, Chop the dog, is definitely a job done right. So good, maybe job, perhaps team.

Crime pays- except when it doesn't

Dame da ne, Dame yo , Dame na no yo...

Back in the days of nearly a decade ago I used to be an avid and regular player of Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto V. For the time I think you could easily attest to it being the most played title in my entire library, with probably thousands of hours invested into it yet somehow not a dime beyond the base asking price of the game. This is astounding, when you consider that most of that time was spent lounging in Rockstar's incredibly lucrative online side-hustle; Grand Theft Auto Online; a product built and funded under the assumption that it could outpace simple folk like me and force me to spend money to keep up with the trend. (I guess that's when the industry learnt that people could grind quicker than their developers could develop, who'd a thunk) In-game currency, though entierly earnable ingame, is the premium currency that has shot Rockstar to one of the best earning entertainment brands in the world consistently, and the extent to which players are willing to go in order to earn these shadow upon real currency have often pushed past the boundaries of fair play and even legality. (But who reads those EULA agreements anyway, right?) What we have today is one such story of low down means to achieve the highlife, only with consequences. (And a whole lot of salty responses.)

When I played I remember a friend of the time telling me a theory about the sorts of players who indulge in Grand Theft Auto online, and the way that their methods and personality mirrored that of the game's protagonists. It went something like this: Those who are willing to play the game by it's own rules, struggle for every single milestone and grind themselves ragged, they were Franklins. Those that jumped at the chance to uses glitches or buy their way into the latest expansions and fast cars, well clearly they were Micheals. And those that acquired money not to indulge in the activities of the game but to fund their single man crusades against everyone else's good time, (see: Everyone who ever purchased a tank) there's your Trevors. I, being the sucker that I am, was always a Franklin, but I knew my fair share of the other two and so I'm familiar with the cycle of money making glitches that forever plagued the GTA Online community. (Or graced it, depending on which side of the fence you were on)

In my day it was the car cheat which, and forgive my hazy memory of almost 8 years ago, I think used the garage and so hot-switching to clone expensive cars that could then be sold off for considerable amounts of money. This was how a lot of people I knew made their fortunes off the game, all the while whilst I was grinding that one decently consistently paying mission over-and-over. What was that called again... That's right- Coveted. Oh, Coveted. This was the mission that everyone played in order to make the big bucks. I'm told that Rockstar have changed the mission reward structure since my time in order to discourage... legitimate play? (Seriously, you were getting the retention time Rockstar; what was the problem?) Rockstar were actually responsible for a lot of micro-transgression like this which kept punishing those that had found decent ways to make money in the efforts of pushing them towards newer content; which usually paid like ass thus demoralising people. What I'm saying is, Rockstar's Online didn't exactly incur the best relationship among the players in the community as everyone feared the patch boogey-man everyday.

Of course, since I was there for so long and saw so many of the cheats which swept the community, I also saw the repercussions when they landed as Rockstar (who had jokingly become known as the IRS) swept across servers rolling back funds of those who had sold a few too many identical cars for their own good. my friend, however, did manage to keep his garage full of identical supercars even after losing his wealth, so the team still weren't the best at honing in on culprits. (Pretty crappy IRS that doesn't even bother to check assets) I even heard some stories of legitimately earning folk who got caught in the wave of punishments, simply for the act of generating ingame income a little too quickly. (Not sure if that was actually truthful or just the guilt spinning a web, but the accusation is there.) But that was the cycle of the GTA Online world. A glitch would come out, a chunk of the community would exploit it, and Rockstar would crack down with wrist-slaps galore. I'm sure things are significantly newer and different these 2020 days!

Well recently the economy of the Grand Theft Auto Online world has been rocked by a glitch which has allowed folk to illegitimately make ludicrous amounts of money with very little effort on their part. All it took was buying some apartments, messing with the active game memory through application suspensions and overwriting those apartments with other apartments which forced a refund- or something; I'm not clear on the specifics. But, wait a minute... isn't this eerily familiar to the car glitch? And countless others from over the years? How in the world is Rockstar still falling for the same old tricks in 2020? Unless- No. That's too ridiculous. This must be a legitimate bug which popped up out of nowhere and unfortunately ended up in the hands of Redditors; the single most dangerous hands for any even remotely sensitive information to end up.

Thus the cycle did as cycles do; it repeated itself. People flocked like wildfire to get the money they felt they deserved after 8 years of hard grind, only to find themselves out of pocket when Rockstar swung around their might hammer of repercussions. (Oh Noe, who could have ever foreseen this?) Only, things are distincly- harsher than what I remembered. (Or maybe my memories just crap, that's wholly possible.) Because alongside the resets that have rocked the community, apparently Rockstar have rolled around issuing complete account resets. As in- having your character and all 8 years of your experience with them rolled back into nothing. (Scary stuff indeed) That would mean all the quest progresses, levels, cars, probably purchased money packs, all that has been flushed down the drain in a hard slash back from Rockstar mods. (Way to go nuclear)

And, it's safe to say, people aren't happy about this at all. I've seen a considerable number of tweets and images over the past few days of people absolutely melting down over this grave injustice upon their person. Some bemoaned the years of history they lost, others argued that they'd only bought cars with the money so therefore shouldn't have been punished as harshly (not following the thread of the argument there, but okay) and even some people have taken to wantonly flashing how they didn't get caught in the wave and that they still have their illegitimate funds. (What are those people, masochists?) One fellow even showed off a picture of his Xbox-One disc-copy of Grand Theft Auto snapped in three; symbolic of the way that he probably has the game on digital like everyone else. (Real powerful message there, buddy.) Most curious of all, however, is the people who declare their retirement from the GTA Online world, most commonly matched with a variation upon the phrase 'you messed up, Rockstar'. Yes, I'm sure the single most profitable gaming mode in the world is missing their, clearly non-paying, contribution to the infrastructure. How tragic of a break-up story.

But as I said, this sort of stuff happens every year so why, then, am I so interested about it today? There were stories like this last year, what's changed? Well the account wide bans got me thinking. Thinking about the regularity of these glitch waves, how they'd always rise in the Spring and be quelled by Autumn, how I always heard about them despite not being involved in the GTA world in the slightest. And how these glitches seem so similar to the ones from 8 years back. Like, seriously Rockstar- learn from your mistakes. And I've come up with a theory. That this is manufactured for regular publicity stunts. Now I'm not saying that the glitch isn't real, nor those who exploited and got caught; I just think the glitch was created to be found, in order to justify a ban wave and make the news. Think about it; why else would GTA Online be in the gaming news if not for deleting 8 year old progression. How could Rockstar miss so many folk if not just to embolden them for the next time GTA pulls this stunt? And why is it always revolving around the purchasing system? It may be conspiratorial for me to say, but we live in a bold world of marketing nowadays and it makes total sense to me. If it's true, then let me be the first to congratulate Rockstar for another job well done, you worm your way into the news cycle like no other. Your reward was this blog, hope you liked it.

Celebrity Cameos

They're just like you or I

Let me be cynical for a second as I say that the easiest way to circumvent the process of creating an interesting and likeable character who is loved for all of their strong personality traits and/or driving goals, is to just replace all that with a celebrity cameo. Now, of course, that isn't always the case when it come to arrangements like this but it sure tends to be more often than not. Afterall, celebrities already have a following of some sort, must be innately likable in some way, and can draw a decent crowd to your project. This is the reason why big name actors now rule the Hollywood screens and why we see gaming studios drop big money to bring such talent over to this world.

I've always approached the fabled celebrity cameo with a healthy degree of skepticism as I try to figure out exactly what it is that the studios are trying to sell me. Even in the times when the cameo has worked out so well that you forget you're listening to the soothe vibrations of celebrity vocal cords, there is still a hint of exploitation behind the whole process that turns my stomach a little bit. The exercise must rake in some success, however, seeing as how video game studios are still giving it a swing as recently as this year. (It still isn't rampant as in main stream movies, though, so it can't be too profitable in the long run.)

I think that perhaps the most contemporary example of this is in Hideo Kojima's latest work, Death Stranding. (Light spoilers.) Some ripples have reverberated over the Internet in regards to this title and it's not just because of the fact that the game is as weird and wacky as people have been assuming it would be for all these years. Nor is it due to the occasional piece of out-of-place product placement that we see scattered around the game world. I think the biggest "What?" that seems to have been stemming from this game is the secret in which you can track down Conan O'Brien and have him give you a hat in the shape of an Otter. Now I could go into details of where you find him and the potential links that this appearance could have to his 'Clueless gamer' skits, but honestly does any of that really matter? Conan O'Brien's hologram shows up in a Hideo Kojima game. 'Nuff said.

When I forced myself into Gears of War fandom in order to keep up with everyone else's hype, the last thing I was expecting was for a rapper to turn up as one of the side characters in the latest entry. And yet, Gears of War 3's Aaron Griffin turned out to be exactly that as he was voiced and loosely modelled around Ice-T. Epic games were clearly proud of this particular collaboration as he was one of the hardest characters to unlock in that game's horde mode too, requiring players to make a stupid amount of money through playing the mode. (Enough to require several days worth of playtime to be dedicated exclusively to this mode.) Epic even reached out to Mr. T again (Not that Mr.T) when it came time for Borderlands 3. Or at least, I assume the Epic connection was the reason why Gearbox were saddled with bringing Ice into their game.

Ubisoft wanted to get onto this train this year with a game that I have covered a decent bit on this blog: Ghost Recon Breakpoint. If you remember, I mentioned how they wanted to make a big splash with the major villain of that game by modelling him and having him voiced by Jon Bernthal. Now Mr. Bernthal is a tremendous actor known for his roles in Walking Dead and the Punisher, and casting that man as a disgruntled ex-special forces terrorist seemed like actual dream casting. Unfortunately, this game was written by Ubisoft's games-as-a-service team and so they actually managed to bungle a script that literally wrote itself. Bernthal's Walker does what he can but there is only so much anyone can do with a generic, unfocused 'mad at the system' character who is, bizarrely, designed in such a way that the player can kill him off half way through the game and have the rest of the plot play out without him. (Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a mastermind?)

Mass Effect Andromeda is hardly a game that will go down in history for great characters and/or voice acting but I always keep it at the back of my mind for several odd reasons; one of which being the fact that it is currently listed on Natalie Dormer's IMDB page. That is because Bioware decided to cast her as the Tempest's medical office, Lexi T'Perro. This was clearly done in a way to capitalize off of her recent 'Game of thrones' fame and not to benefit the actress' talents, as was made apparent by the way that Bioware published several videos teasing her involvement whilst in game she played an extremely forgettable side character. Lexi hardly has any baring on the main narrative and even when she does get the chance to speak it is as cold and clinical as humanly possible. (I honestly can't remember if this character has an emotion in the entire game.) So when it comes down to a question of wasted talent, Mass Effect Andromeda knocked it out the park here, too.

The Saints Row series, known for the odd wink-and-nod to the audience, went above and beyond with their cameo when they announced that Keith David would be playing your vice president in Saints Row 4. This came alongside much fan fare and advertisement despite the fact that, as veterans of the franchise would know, Keith David already played a character in Saints Row lore; the original leader of the Saints: Julius. (And you can bet that the Devs didn't miss a chance to mention that in the game.) Keith David is placed front and center in this game as a main character and given plenty of material to be as funny as possible, making him one of the better examples of cameos that we can see in the world of gaming.

Of course, one can hardly talk about gaming cameos without bringing up the classic; GTA San Andreas. That is because San Andreas is a game that is practically dripping with cameos out of every orifice. (Such to the point where the term 'cameo' actually loses all meaning.) We're talking about a cast containing the likes of Samuel L. Jackson, Chris Penn, Ice-T (again), James Woods, Peter Fonda, David Cross, Danny Dyer, Frank Vincent and more I'm sure. What makes it even better; some of those characters I mentioned are actually reoccurring or main characters. None of these characters are celeb fodder and most of them use the talents of the actor to elevate a strong character into an unforgettable one. This is the reason why San Andreas' cast is still remembered as the best that Rockstar ever assembled. (Also the music tracks. They were great too.)

Oftentimes celebrities are used as a replacement for good writing, that's immutable, but occasionally something decent and interesting can come from it. For every time that CoD uses Kevin Spacey or Kit Harrington for forgettable stock villains, there are games like Fallout New Vegas who know exactly how to use one of their celeb stand in's, The Radio DJ: Mr Las Vegas; to make for a fitting subject, The Radio AI; Mr New Vegas. I suppose it's up to the consumer to decide if they find the very prospect insulting enough to hold it against the larger game, or if they'll at least keep an open mind up until their suspicions are confirmed.

Rain

It's pretty risky

We all have those little quirky things we love that we can't explain. The kind of things that make you smile internally for some unexplainable reason that no one else shares. When it comes to games, I like to think of it as that little piece of love that you share with the one developer who worked on that. An inside joke that the two of you share and always bring up in conversation. Judging from the title you can likely see where this is going so I'll just out and say it; I like rain.

Being a Brit, one could make a sound argument that such an affirmation is a manifestation of Stockholm syndrome, but whatever the case I am a rain connoisseur. (Purely in video games, you understand. Can't stand the stuff in real life.) Anytime a video game boasts dynamic weather changes I'm always excited to see how they handle that most common of phenomena. Radiation storms are cool the first time, I guess. Snow blizzards are usually more annoying than fun. And hurricanes always sound more exciting in concept than in person. (Sorry, Just Cause 4.) I prefer to dedicate my escapism fantasy experience to the fun activity of staying out of the rain. Or rather, I would, but I have quests to do and stuff so I just have to grin and bear it. (Kind of like in real life.)

If I were to take a psychoanalytic angle to this predilection I may conclude that these feelings stem back to my days indoors as a child. Oftentimes in the autumnal months, the heavens would open up on a nearly daily basis, and in Britain when it rains it absolutely pours. During times like these I often liked to wrap up in a cover and sit by the window sill, observing the uncomfortable, cold downpour outside whilst basking in the warmth and comfort of the indoors. Perhaps there's a little bit of sadism involved in it too, as I have lived up the road from a train station most of my life, so I often got to see commuters, fresh off the train, suffering the consequences of being ill-prepared for the cloud's wrath. (It's always satisfying when it's happening to someone else...)

Something about watching my video game avatar bear the same struggles is infinitely endearing and relatable for me. I may not posses the upper body strength to wear plate armour, the charisma to make friends, the intelligence to solve crimes, or the immortal spirit of Akatosh within which I can consume the souls of slain dragons; but I can stand in the rain. (Heck, I've done it before!) Maybe me and the video game guy aren't so different after all.

"But you didn't call yourself an 'enthusiast', you specifically said 'Conisseur', which implies some critical consideration." Very astute, dear reader, yes I did. That is because I am such an individual who takes great interest in the way that rain works in video games and am always eager to ensure that there are some carnal sins of rain implementation that are not broken. (Feel like I misplaced the term 'Carnal', but what's done is done.) I won't say that poor rain implementation is enough to break my immersion from a game, that would be silly. But I would, undoubtedly, be immeasurably disappointed and have my day be ruined. So allow me to take you through the weird things that I check whenever I encounter a game with the hubris to imitate Zeus.

One of the most important aspects to consider is one that so many games ignore, does the rain fall where it's supposed to. In order to understand this, there is something I must established. Rain falls from the sky. Discounting the affects of velocity, cloud angle, and wind, that would mean the rain would fall in a downwards motion and a straight manner. Being that those facts are solid and immutable, can someone explain to be why in 'Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories' I get rain that falls on me whilst I'm inside my garage?

Of course, this comes down to the fact that some developers can't be bothered to program rain that reacts to collision boxes. (Maybe that would cause too much strain on the system. Whatever Dev excuses they want to use.) The result is rain that effectively ghosts surfaces and hit the player anywhere as long as they are in an outside wordspace. As a rain lover, this absolutely ruins the potential to stand in shelter and watch everyone else deal with the sky's tears, which is an absolutely damnable crime to the depiction of rain. Oh yeah, it's also deeply unimmersive and makes it feel like weather effects were haphazardly slapped onto the game as an afterthought. (Which, honestly, may be close to the truth.)

Those proud games that do go that extra mile to ensure that rain reacts to solid surfaces do earn my respect. Games like 'Witcher 3: Wild Hunt', 'Red Dead Redemption 2' and 'Watch Dogs 2' showcase how at least one Dev on the team cared about this as much as I do. In these games you can have those moments when you stand under an awning, close your eyes, and just listen to the rhythmic patter of rain drowning out the ambiance of civilization. Something you can't do in person because it's always too chilly in rain season and you're vulnerable to splashback when you stand under awnings, it's just not worth it. (Plus, if you stand in the middle of a busy street with your eyes closed you're pretty much asking to get pickpocketed. Or is that just my area?)

This here's a real new age technique. The kind of stuff that wasn't possible with game engines back in the day. I like to look out for whether or not the rain forms into puddles. I'm not implying that the game should dynamically create puddles to match the force of the rain, because at that you'd just be making a rain simulator game. (That would be awesome but I don't think the world's quiet ready for it yet.) Instead I'm referring to those times when the world crafter's have gone in meticulously to designate spots in the world that would accommodate puddles so that such can form when the heavens open.

Games like 'Red Dead Redemption 2' and 'Spiderman PS4', real gems of the market, like to show off how this technology works and the results are astounding. Even 2002's Divine Divinity boasted reflective puddles in it's gorgeous hand drawn sprite art. This here isn't even really an immersion factor for me as games haven't yet reached the universal level where such an absence would be brow-raising. More so, puddles serve as an atheistically pleasing tool to show of a particular game's reflection tech. (A process that is typically a lot more intensive to the processing memory than one would think.) Just seeing light bounce off of tiny mud lakes on the ground is enough to transform a soggy morning into something serene and beautiful.

Here is an issue focusing more on immersion. One that betrays the nature of game design in a way that I can accept, but still don't want it shouted at every time I look up. This particular point of contention relies on if the rain is centralized on me. Now, I understand that it is unreasonable to load an entire game world at once, no game has, or would ever have, the memory to accommodate that. Instead, games will load relevant data in chunks and have the audience's viewing point loaded whilst unloading everything around them. This works with rain too, obviously.  It would be imprudent to have a rain effect engulf your entire gameworld if the player can only see the space around them, so developers would have it only displayed where it's necessary.

The problem here, is that some games take this to it's lazy conclusion and have it so that rain literally follows you around as though you're Little Misfortune. (Yikes forever!) To understand what I mean by this, load up Minecraft and wait for it to rain, then look up and move around. Notice how, no matter where you move, you're always perfectly between the same strands of rain particles? That's centralized rain. Minecraft isn't the only the game that does it either, despite the fact that, given it's visual flair, it is the only game that should be allowed to. If rain falls through the scenery then that blunder is often accompanied with this in some form. A constant reminder that weather effects for this world were an afterthought and you are stupid for caring about their implementation. This is a feature that I find supremely immersion breaking, contrary to my earlier affirmation, and I hold particular distaste for any who choose to subject their audience to it. (For shame, sir.) 

Let's go back to the cool little Easter eggs. Rain effects that aren't really new, but which impress me when I see them every time. I'm talking about games in which my clothes react to the rain fall. Games with particular care given to their visual flair, like 'Red Dead Redemption' (Again) and 'Metal Gear Solid: The Phantom Pain',  recognize that it is just as important to have fabrics react on the player model as it is to have rain interact with the world. This goes further than just adding a lingering drip effect, too. I'm talking about moments in which players are treated to dynamically damping clothing material that reflects how much liquid you just interacted with. That also goes for dipping in the drink.

Many games have model variations that they subtly blend together when you enter the rain, but they feel like the bare minimum in this department. Rockstar had John Marston's trousers get more soggy for the further he wades into the sea, that's despite the fact that John couldn't even swim in Red Dead 1 and drowned if he went in as deep as his hat. (His entire face could be submerged and he would still be fine as long as his hat was dry. Weird, I know.) Having Big Boss' clothing react the same way was also a very neat immersion tool as players spent quiet a lot of time sneaking through rain, crawling across damp marshes and summoning sound dampening rainstorms through experimental chemical drops. (Oh that's a 'chem trails' joke isn't it? Oh Kojima, what are you like!)

Now we approach territory that could be considered somewhat subjective. What I find acceptable in this field may not reach your standards and vice versa, the only thing for it is to judge for yourself. You see, I always pay attention to whether or not the rain looks like rain. Let me explain. Oftentimes, the hardest things to recreate in a digital medium are the effects that we see everyday in the real world. Can computers create an electrical tornado? Sure. No one knows what the look like so their brains will judge what you show them and just go "Yeah, that looks about right." But when it comes to animating water, or the ocean, then we enter whole new territory. How do you simulate something that billions of people see each and every day? How do you predict it's randomness, it's rise and fall or the way that waves come in and leave the shores? More pertinently, how do you portray the rain?

You see it everyday but stop and think for a second, how do you draw it? Take a look in most comics and you'll see it as a collection of black lines across the page, but that isn't really what rain looks like, we just kind of get the message. Making rain actually look like rain requires so much effort that it usually isn't worth it for the dramatic tension, might as well just have Spiderman and Kraven the Hunter duke it out indoors. The same goes for video game developers, only they often don't have the luxury of going the lazy route. It's often posited that every rain drop is unique (or is that snowflakes?) so designers have to ensure that it moves fast enough for you not to see the droplets but not so fast that it doesn't appear to be rain anymore, or harms the picture quality. Every aspect of rain design must take these factors into account to truly create something believable.

That doesn't mean that there aren't those that still go the lazy route. As much as I adore the game, 'The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim' features some of the worst vanilla rain in modern gaming. It doesn't fall hard enough to look like rain, the strands are so thin that you hardly notice it and the atmosphere doesn't adopt the damp ambience that one would expect. (Yeah, I'm taking that into account too.) Altogether, the visual design is key to selling the effect and everything else can fall apart depending on how much care was put into this process.

For the last point, I want to address what I consider to be the most cathartic part of rainfall, the sound. When I sit at home and relish in the suffering of those outside who forgot their umbrellas (It sustains me) I love to hear the pitter patter of the droplets clattering into the street. The more rain there is, the more satisfying the sound. Few natural wonders derive as much genuine pleasure out of me as wrapping up and listening to the cacophonous orchestra of a flash flood. (The shop at the end of my road, which is also lowered to street level, might not share my enthusiasm there.) All that means I am someone who takes it very seriously when they hear ingame rain, either get the sound right or don't try at all.

Sound design isn't something we talk about too often on this blog, as it is a process that is mostly alien to me, but what snippets I have seen always do impress me. Oftentimes sound designers go out of their way to construct devices that create sounds identical to the ones you are trying to portray. If push really comes to shove, they just go outside with sound equipment and try to capture the raw sound, but I'd imagine the level of control that needs to go into such expeditions make it unappealing. With such a variety in potential methods, it's hard for me to explain what makes a 'good' sound for rain and what doesn't. It's one of those things that you just know in your heart of hearts. I'm not qualified enough to spell this one out for you, just to encourage you to pay attention for yourself.

I don't know whether or not anyone else pays as close attention to Video game rain as I do, or even if they should. There are so many large scale issue I can forgive in game's design that should turn me into a joy hating shrew if I were to apply the same level of critique there as I do to this inconsequential feature. (This blog is 20 paragraphs long, for goodness sake!) I suppose we all just have those lines in the sand that we draw and mine is in the shape of a puddle that better collect rainwater or so help me... I should probably wrap this up before I start to give away just how neurotic I really am, although that's likely already out of the bag considering today's topic.

FOMO

You gonna miss out...

Whilst watching game reviews at 2:00 AM in the morning, as I am often wont to do, YouTube's 'impeccable' recommendation algorithm figured me out enough to feed me an advertisement of a game. Tickled, I decided this would be the first one, in a long while, that I didn't immediately skip. Plus, it was a new 'Ghost Recon: Breakpoint' trailer, so I'm always down to see what's happening in Tom Clancy's military-obsessive world. The Ghost War trailer looked interesting enough, although they seemed to tease some Battle Royale elements in there which was typically eye-rolling, but that isn't the focus of this blog. You see, tucked in there right at the end of the trailer was a little notification I hadn't noticed before, "Play 3 days early with the Ultimate Edition". Oh Ubisoft, not you too...

It instantly got me thinking about all of the ways in which the AAA market have sold consumers on their transparent 'play-first initatives'. And no, I'm talking about Early access games or those that release in pitiful pre-alpha states, that's the topic of a different blog. I am referring to those times in which game developers and publishers have sought to capitalize on the innate consumer desire to be the forebearer, by teasing such players into a deal. It seems like part of the marketing machine nowadays and it's an interesting phenomenon that I want to take a look at.

The first time I fully noticed this was years ago when I had saved up the money to get my first seventh generation console. All the way up to the store I was torn between what console I should buy, going back and forth over the benefits of each (which simply meant looking at what games each had to offer.) Once I got there, however, I saw an absolute must have for any gamer; 'Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City' affixed with a sign that read 'Only on Xbox'. "Well my decision is made for me" Naive me, thought "Xbox will have to be the choice". Of course, the truth of the matter is that the game was merely a timed exclusive and would be branching out in time, but I didn't know that, I was just a foolish consumer who fell for the Microsoft-pushed marketing ploy.

Console timed exclusivity have been pushing this sort of 'buy my console' agenda forever. Although, I will come to their defence and say, it's a better practise than outright exclusivity which sullies potential opportunities for the consumer. (Although I imagine the respective developers get a lot more money for it.) This was an effective strategy in the fact that, most consumers who are desperate to play a game will balk at the idea of waiting a year to play how they want, a new console just seems easier for all parties to swallow. Heck, I even considered buying 'the Outer Worlds' on the abominable Epic store before reason swooped in to remind me that it was also releasing on the Microsoft store. (Thank god)

Another fun way that developers coerce players into dishing out early is through the ever exclusive 'founder pack'. You usually find these with kickstarter projects or passion lead MMOs. They are the opportunity in which you have the chance to solidify your belief in the project through the only medium that counts, cold hard cash. As a result of your money, players are rewarded with an exclusive selection of DLC to forever signify that they were on the first ones to be here. This could be a nice emblem, shiny exclusive gear or, most notably, a glittering effect forever embossed around your name for all to see whenever they play with you.

There are some other ways that AAA companies have stepped into the 'founder Pack' meta. Blizzard Entertainment's; Overwatch, boasted an 'Origin Edition' for those who counted among the game's early adopters. This doesn't just provide value to the consumer in the realm of digital content either, as there were boxes printed with the proud 'Origin Edition' title on them, which hold significant value amongst the fields of collectors. Or rather it would, if Overwatch wasn't easily one of the biggest games of it's generation. Pretty much everyone picked it up in that first year, and right now it's probably more of an anomaly to not have the Origin Edition copy of the game. Too bad for rare collectors, I guess.

A method that hits particularly close to home for me is the concept of the Beta. For those that don't know, 'Beta' is a term used to describe a certain milestone that has met in the development of software. In video game development, there is no set-in-stone requirements that a product must meet to be considered 'Beta'; but most would usually see it as the time that the game is starting to take a form resembling the final product, a period that should be immune from wild shifts in the development direction. Public Betas, on the other hand, is the idea of stress-testing the online servers of your product by inviting the audience to jump ontop of them. It should all be very clinical and analytical, afterall, the sole purpose is for ensuring the released product is up to par, right? In recent years however, Beta has taken on on entire new, marketing driven, meaning.

I have mentioned it before, but I was one of those saps that was drawn into the promise of Destiny. A brand new IP crafted by the visionaries behind Halo that promised to be the next bold leap in video game franchises. Every thing about the game seemed epic; from the advertising (Become legend) to the future plans (10-year plan) and even the incredible budget that surpassed any game before. (Although now it is clear that an inflated budget just means that a lot money is getting wasted.) Everyone was so eager to get their hands on the game that we all jumped at the chance to join in on the Beta. Bungie spared no effort in marketing this Beta, either. They didn't propose the Beta as a 'testing phase' but rather a chance to play the game early and be taken in by the world. There was only one caveat; you had to pre-order the game to play the Beta.

The response was incredible, communities were built overnight as people flooded to streams featuring those lucky enough to play the exciting new product. Several YouTube video's also made their quota by selling Beta codes to their audience. It must have been a dizzying time to be at Bungie. When the Beta finally shut down, after an extension, several thousand players, and new friends, all came together to bid each other goodbye as though it were the end of an era (Although the game would release in less than a month.) Since then, Beta's have almost exclusively served as vertical slices of the game offered up in order to hook consumers and drive home a fraction of the pre-orders that Bungie secured with their Beta. Good job Bungie, you started a slightly dishonest marketing revolution.

I was much too familiar with the machinations of greedy companies when I first saw the advent of the  'Play early' model, so I didn't fall for it. It didn't help things that the first time I witnessed it, the deal was attached to 'Mass Effect: Andromeda', a game that was announced far earlier than anyone had expected and positively reeked of EA. This was, of course, back with the EA Early access system, which required players to sign up to their paid-subscription in return for discounts and early access to new releases. They had some success when they pulled it with 'Dragon Age: Inquisition', although that time they merely offered a demo of a few early hours in the game. 'Mass Effect: Andromeda' pushed that limit to ten hours and several years later, Anthem would straight up allow players to play the full game some days before everyone else.

The particularly gross element to this scheme is that the early access is usually tied to the purchase of some vastly inflated 'ultimate editon'. In this way game developers seek to punish those that don't dish out an extra £40 by delaying the world wide release. And make no mistake, that is exactly what this practise represents: a manufactured delay. If the game company thinks that the game is complete enough to charge for early access, it's probably also clear for wide release. (Unless it would never be good enough to justify either, a la Anthem.)

I know I'm not alone in groaning every time I see another dishonest practise like this enter the spectrum of gaming. Even though, in full honesty, none of these practises are too bad, at least not compared to some of the things that could be happening. My problem stems from the fact these companies are so desperate to secure that first week funding (which is all important to the performance charts) that they subtly strain the respect between consumer and developer. Don't get me wrong, the strain is subtle, but make no mistake, it is there. When companies balk at the fact that their later games were not as big as the others despite them utilizing the same tactics, it is often because they push just a little too hard with this methods and annoy the consumers. 'Early play' incentives are mostly harmless; a small nick, rather a full-blown slash, to consumer trust. But they should never discount the inevitability of 'death by a thousand cuts'.

My Manuscript on Modular Manipulation otherwise known as: Modifications.

Oh, Just do it yourself then!

Gaming on the PC can be a troubling ordeal. One must keep on top of system requirements, driver updates, game patches and sometimes even the operating system itself. Oftentimes the hoops one has to jump through in order to get the base game itself to function makes the entire experience not worth your time. (Very few games are worth 8 straight hours of trolling through forums until you find an obscure fix on a necro-thread posted by the one games developers; Divinity 2.) But, as any PC elitist will parrot, the reward is the ability to enjoy the full breadth of what a game can offer, and what the community can offer.

Given the malady of humanity to crave the ever-elusive virtue of perpetuity, it should be of no surprise that many people never want to stop playing the games they love. Sometimes sequels can wane in quality or the direction can veer sharply from what you wanted, thus you are drawn back to your old faithful, content in the familiar. But what happens once you've done everything you can do with the product? What happens when there are no depths left to explore in your favourite game? Do you finally move on, or undergo a series of experimental medical procedures to alter your memory so that you may re-approach the game anew? Neither, you delve into the wonderful world of mods.

'Mods' is the term we coin to refer to modifications (get it?) to the base of the game. Different from User Generated Content, Mods can range from something as mundane as a retexturing to something as elaborate as a whole new DLC sized quest mod. (Not to knock any of those high-class retextures I see out there.) They are pieces of content developed and uploaded up members of the community with no ties to the studio who created the game and thus none of the limitations. Mods can stretch the limit of your imagination and fundamentally change the way that a game is played from the ground up. They can be that transformative if the right talent and passion is behind it.

In recent years the idea of 'modding' has started to catch on in the mainstream. Just look online and you'll find dozens of articles detailing 'the best mod to achieve this effect' or update articles following the crafting of some of the most ambitious mods ever like the, apparently soon to release, 'Skyblivion'. In fact, it is a little disingenuous to label mods as a PC phenomenon nowadays; during the marketing for Fallout 4, Todd Howard boasted at the Microsoft conference about how this game would be the first ever home console game to allow for modding. (Which wasn't entirely true, that year's Farming Simulator beat it out by a few months.) True, when Fallout 4 actually landed we saw that the implementation lacked the breadth of what was possible on PC, (Plus mods had to go through Bethesda so we didn't get anything truly outlandish) but this was a significant step to bringing this element of gaming to the masses.

But what is it that is alluring about the world of modding? Well if you ask people like Todd Howard, he claims that it all about the act of taking ownership of your game, filling it with content of your choosing and playing the way that you want to play. For some it can be the promise of a never ending story with constant adventures from now until the end of the Internet. Others may just like the idea of seeing something familiar shone in a whole new light that shifts the viewers perception. There is something deeply personal about the act of modding that makes it appeal to so many different people in so many different ways.

Of course, with how huge the world of modding is and litany of hosting platforms for those mods, there is no earthly way that I can provide an exhaustive list of mods, or even games that feature mods. I spend so much of my free time browsing through gaming forums from every type all over the Internet, and yet I still get surprised by a new one now and then. Therefore, I have instead chosen to focus on certain types of mods that each cater to a certain need from the community. This should help me rationalize this blog and provide something that is fairly coherent. (Although coherence is never certain when you're on this blog.)

Firstly, I will focus on the mods that attempt to fix certain aspects about the core game. These are the modifications that do not try to alter the creator's vision, but rather bolster it my delivering the much beloved 'unofficial patch'. Every now and then, time constraints or lack of resources can lead to corners being cut in the development process. Sometimes all this amounts to is a feature or area being trimmed down or cut, whilst othertimes this can be as serious as leaving huge bugs out in the open for players to deal with. Consumers may have to wait until a patch is released to address this issues, if that patch comes at all (Remember, developers must always be moving onto their next project.), or they could simply roll up their sleeves and get to it themselves.

Sometimes these patches are so imperative that they become absolute must-haves in the community. 'Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines' Unofficial Patch is renowned as the only way one can feasibly run that game on modern consoles (With a modern resolution.) Saints Row 2 similarly suffers from poor PC optimization that can make the game unplayable; celebrated mod, Gentleman of the Row, fixes many of these core concerns whilst adding a bevy of new vehicles and customization options. Things don't even need to be that drastic either. When 'NeiR:Automata' released, it was sorely lacking in settings, one discerning modder fixed this with a helpful patch that provided everything one would require from a settings menu, removing the need to prowl through a volatile 'Ini' file.

Then there are the customization mods. When a developer offers the player customization options, the intent is obvious; they want to engage the player's creative side and have them create an avatar for themselves that they feel personally attached to. This can be difficult, however, if the tools available to you are not broad enough to create your ideal character. Normally, the only solution would be to scale back one's ambition, but with modding you can reach for the exact opposite. Any game with a character customizer is just patiently waiting for the community to supplement it with modding options.

Games like X-Com 2 launched out of the box with mod support to help accommodate for these kinds of mods. Members of your squad could be fashioned with a modular customization system, ideal for additional content, and even attributed a voice pack, which players could create. As such it wasn't too hard to create an entire force of your favourite pop culture/ Video game characters to help fight back against ADVENT. Even the GTA games have been met with hundreds of clothing mods, dating all the way back to San Andreas. Creating your perfect character is very important to some people.

Software in tech is a fickle mistress, just when you feel you've reached her full potential, she reconstructs the goal posts next year. As such, graphics that look top-of-the-line today will undoubtedly be outclassed tomorrow in our endless march towards 1:1 animation. Some of your favourite games from back in the day likely still look as perfect as the day you met in your head, but dig it out and you may start to notice the crease of wrinkles and the sag of skin. (This personification bit is going a tad awry.) modders have you covered, however, with all the tools you need to spruce your game back up and have it looking good as new.

There are many examples of beautification projects in the modding community, such as the aforementioned retextures that one might find in the Fallout and Elder Scrolls world. This is when modders extract texture files and either do-them-up or just straight replace them with their own maps. Then there are lighting mods, volumetric mixers and texture blenders that all work together to blur the seams of the world to be imperceptible. ENB's bring all of these together to overhaul the visual atmosphere of your entire game world. And no, I don't know what 'ENB' stands for. (Best guess from me is 'Enhanced Natural Beauty')

Then there are the mods that bring something wholly unique and new to the game. Folk like me love the escapism of our favourite games so much that we never want the adventure to end, and with content mods it never has to. Modders have been adding new quests, lands and game modes to games ever since the days of Half Life and these are the types of mods that I personally live for. I find nothing more exciting then traversing back to familiar lands and finding things different, it's a new unknowable adventure every time.

There are countless dozens of examples of situations where modders have changed the fabric of a game with their content. I already mentioned Half Life and the slew of mods which comes from that  (One of which became a game of some reknown called: Counter Strike.) DOOM has it's several comprehensive level mods that put the Marine in whole new maps against hoards of monsters. Then there are total conversion mods like Oblivion's 'Nehrim', which uses the base game as a platform to tell a wholly original story in a modder crafted world. There are truly no limits to this kind of creativity.

Modding is one of those elements that I think best encapsulates passion that the gaming community inspires, a passion that few other communities do. How many pieces of art drive people to, not just take up the craft themselves, but actively modify that piece of art to make it their own? You find the odd dedicated fanbase who'll seek to re-edit movies (Like the famous Phantom Edit for the Star Wars Prequels), but nothing that rivals the sheer size and creativity of the modding community. I have dabbled in small, personal mods and I thus I can attest to the amount of love it takes to infuse some part of yourself into someone else's project. It's what transforms games from products into communities, and I look forward to see how it will evolve once it starts taking further root into the general gaming populace. Perhaps we'll start to see that next generation.

Open that world

What wonderful worlds.

Open worlds have become a popular stage for many gaming experiences in recent years, winning over fans with the allure of a diverse open space to fuel exploration. In practise, few of these spaces will work out in the way the fans and developers very much want them to, they will be oversized and under worked spaces that exist merely to inflate the length of the game. That is the reality of video game openworlds. Recently, I met a fellow gamer who told me that he just couldn't stand openworld games, when he said that I was expecting to hear the same thing that I've heard before about how 'overwhelming' those kind of games can be; instead he seemed incensed by a trait of these games exclusive to those low effort attempts I just described: Busywork.

When I use that term, I am referring to the way in which these 'openworld lite' experiences try to make the exploration of their space a meaningful endeavour. Busywork is what I call it when the game wants to send you to all those boring rooftops in search of another bloody collectible. Busywork is when you look at the worldmap and sigh when you release that you can't make out the streets for all of the icons plastered over it. Busywork is when your video game feels less like a fun way to kill some time and more like your second job. And it bothers me that people are starting to see Busywork as an integral part of openworlds.

One of the first time I ever personally experienced the soul crushing effects of being swamped with busywork was back when I used to buy Ubisoft games. I still enjoy the odd Assassin's Creed now and then, but I am no where near the level of obsessed that I used to be. Recently I shared the fact that, whenever a new Assassin Creed would release, I would play through every single installment up until then. I would call it my 'omnibus'. This tradition carried on until the release of Unity, partially because of how that game disappointed me both in gameplay and narrative but mostly because of what I did during the previous year's omnibus. For some inane reason, whilst anticipating the release of Black Flag, I decided to finally 100% the original Assassins Creed.

Let me try to explain how stupid of a decision this was. Assassins Creed was one of Ubisoft's first attempts to craft a viable open world and it really does show. Some of the worst game design tendencies that have endured in this franchise were spawned from the original; choices in combat design, narrative structure and open world design. Assassins Creed's Kingdom is big. Too big. So big that the developers clearly had no idea what to do with it. Most of Assassins Creed's plot takes place within the three ingame cities, leaving a huge expanse between them devoid of anything to do. This made someone come up with a damnable idea for filling up that space with the implementation of collectibles.

First let me say, I have nothing against collectibles in games, I actually think that they can be rather cool. Grand Theft Auto 5 has a huge 'scavenger hunt' collectible that tasked players with finding spaceship parts all other the midriff of the map. Those that partook got a rewarding cut scene and a commemorative UFO. These sorts of collectibles are great because they encourage exploration without forcing it. Sure, completionists will have to spend their hours combing the world space, but a casual player could easily pass this by without feeling as though they are missing out or being pressured in. That is because these collectibles are not the only reason the player would ever visit this part of the gameworld. Rockstar are great at making use of their worldspace and ensuring that it all feels relevant and meaningful, there are no huge tracts of lands placed without thought or purpose behind them.

Rockstar also excel at making these collectibles feel worthwhile. They tie in the scavenger hunt with an actual story in order to provide some context for the things you do and make their collection worthwhile. Bethesda does the same with the relics and hidden items you can find in their games. That little bit of context turns this tacked on addition into something resembling a worthwhile use of your time. Suddenly, I'm not chasing glowing cubes in order to add another percentage onto my completion, I'm steadily unravelling a mystery and closing in on the treasure beneath. Just a cursory bit of effort on the implementation can make a world of difference for the player.

Ubisoft did not put in that effort when it came to Assassin Creed. The first game had more pointless collectibles than anyone could reasonably be expected to find during their time with the game. You would have to be some sort of fool or masochist in order to waste your time on something like that. (I'll let you figure out which one I was.) First you have to find the flags. These are just floating, glowing flags that are placed any and everywhere without rhyme or reason. That's 100 Acre flags, 100 Damascus Flags, 100 Jerusalem flags, 100 King Richard flags and 20 Masyaf flags. There are also 60 Templars scattered about the gameworld. That is 480 collectible items in one game. Needless to say, after going through the hell of collecting them the first time, I have never played Assassins Creed again.

But that is merely one game, right? Surely Ubisoft will have learnt their lesson for the next game? Well, the much superior Assassins Creed 2 also, somehow, drops the ball in this department. Now you have to find feathers, treasure chests and glyphs. At least the 'glyph' collectibles have significant story ties and an in-game indicator to tell you when you are close, but the other two are as inane as they sound. Treasure chests grant you gold, (big whoop. Ezio owns an entire town, money isn't really an issue.) and the feathers are tied with some stupid plot about getting Ezio's mother to talk again after the death of most of her children. This might make players care if Maria actually bothered to show up in the rest of the game, I forgot she even existed by the time I got the last one.

I know that I am singling out Assassin's Creed but I truly do believe that Ubisoft are the instigators for this trend of pointless and/or empty openworlds we see today. Sniper Ghost Warrior 3's open world almost felt like a carbon copy of the kind of world spaces one would expect in a Far Cry game; Saints Row's openworlds are more designed to ape GTA, but the later games end up devolving into Watch_Dogs style collect-athons; and 2015's Mad Max completely buckled under the weight of it's open world forcing players to jump through hoops just to implement a sense of progression to the play space. I won't blame Ubisoft for creating all of these 'openworld lite' trends, however I will point out that they certainly did popularize a lot them.

Today, going 'Open World' is actually pretty groan-worthy to gamers. We aren't a stupid bunch, and we recognize a lazy marketing gimmick from a mile away. But, when publishers look at the runaway success of games like GTA V ($6 Billion), they lose all sense of reason and mandate their developers to ride these game's coattails. Making an openworld is no small undertaking, and if the entire team aren't 100% in the right frame of mind to make it, it immediately shows in the results. But despite that, developers are still being forced to create something they lack the resources or inspiration to strive towards, all due to some mad pursuit for success

I think that a lot of this fervour stems from the vilification of the term 'linear'. (I'll talk more about that later.) People seems to think that an openworld automatically means that the game isn't linear and therefore worth their time, or at least that is what the publishers assume we think. Personally, I love a good openworld game, so it makes my skin crawl when I see these shameless cash grabs muddy the genre with their attempts. Although, I suppose someone must be buying them because these people keep making them. Things have started to slow down in the past year as the in-thing has shifted towards battle royales, but there are still the old holdouts perpetuating bad world design. (I see you, Ubisoft.) Will the industry see a shift for the better with the impending release of great openworld role models like 'the Outer Worlds' and 'Cyperpunk 2077'? Heck no. But at least us openworld fans will get a couple great games to take our minds off the cash grabs.

Catching the Censorship bug.

Somethings gonna give.

Censorship. Something of a contentious topic in the wider world, especially when applied to creative endeavours. People always like to postulate on the necessity of censorship and the reaches it will go to if left unchecked. As a result, some interesting hypotheticals get bought up on the issue. Does the artists intent come into play when something is censored? Is anything worthy of full censorship or just partial censorship? And at what point does censorship start to impede the fundamental values of freedom of speech? I'm not here to talk about any of those larger examples of censorship you may have heard about in the world however, wouldn't fit my MO. I want to talk to you about censorship as it exists within video games today, mostly between the covering of naughty parts and violence.

For my part I'm an advocate of reduced levels of censorship and regulation. I think that artists should have the right to express themselves in whatever way that they-so choose and bring their work to light even if it does touch on darker topics. It allows for a greater range of discussion and discourse when a narrative is allowed to plump into the darker depths of human capabilities. This is the sort of thing that can really push a story into a realm where it can actually effect the audience in ways they had never thought possible. Who remembers back when Game of Thrones was still good and we were subjected to the scene that has come to be known as the red wedding? Do you remember how you felt? For me, watching it alone in the dark, I remember sitting there in shock until the next show came on. (Which, incidentally, was a making-of for GoT.) After I could bear to get up again, I remember going to by room and sitting down thinking 'I'd love to play a game to calm down but I don't think I can stand to see the colour red right now'. That scene was so brutal and vivid that it displayed the horrific reality of violence in a way that no other 'hyper violent' show or movie had ever done for me before. To this day I've never felt that way after watching a particularly gruesome scene in anything and I think it's a shame.

The reason I bought up that GoT Scene was because I don't think that would have been aired 10 years prior. Of course, it helped that Game of Thrones was still incredibly popular when that scene aired, I doubt that 'Arrow' could have gotten away with a similar scene. But we have come such a long way when it comes to regulating fictional violence that the 'The red wedding' is now a possibility. If we hadn't of made strides to break down the wall of censorship that had been established, we might have never been graced with one of the most powerful and memorable moments of TV. When we come to the topic of the way that censorship has been utilized when it comes to Video Games we find that different walls have been setup that have yet to be challenged, yet alone overcome.

But first lets start at the beginning. You're likely already aware of the origins of Video Game censorship but I love to hear the sound of my own typing so bear with me. In 1976 a little game called 'Death Race' hit the arcades. (No apparent relation to the Stallone movie.) In the game the player was tasked with running over gremlins in a little pixel car. The height of carnage, obviously. This caused a whole slew of controversy as people decried the game whilst claiming the usual: the game would lead to rampant hit-and-cases all over the country! Since then there were several scattered controversies over the years. 1982's Clusters Revenge (Aka sexual assault simulator), 1987's Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards (Which didn't even feature anything sexual, it was just a crappy point and click game.) and, of course, 1992's Mortal Kombat. Midway's Mortal Kombat utilized animation developed from real life pictures to simulate it's fighters, and then worked on blood and gore effects on top. The result was the most horrifying and realistic violence ever seen by man! In the early 1990's! The ensuing chaos is well documented. Everyone and their mother wanted Video Games banned for their violent influence, because video games were most certainly the cause of all evil in the world. Things got so bad that in 1994 the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) was established in order to get ahead of things before government regulation started up.

Since then, Violence has become a huge sticking point for people who dislike gaming. Just look at disbarred attorney Jack Thomspon. (Who's Wikipedia page rather generously lists as 'activist' rather than 'explotation artist'.) Jack made a name for himself by launching a campaign on all things pixellated for years. Okay, that's not entirely true. Back in the day he spoke out against rap music too, but he really hit a stride with all the Video Game stuff. Jack seemed to position himself as an arch nemesis to unstoppable video game titan: Rockstar. The attacks he made against the violence and sexual themes of GTA are legendary. He filed lawsuits against them, funded campaigns and went all out to destroy Take Two through the legal courts. Then he got disbarred.

But before he slipped into obscurity, Jack Thomson opened the floodgates for the cries of censorship that would befall the gaming landscape. Droves of NRA members would accuse games of causing violence, rather ironically. Talks show hosts would film segments on GTA, lamenting the way the game encouraged hedonism and murder (completely oblivious to it's satirical leanings), and then there was that one time when Watch_dogs got in the headlines. I understand that people are afraid of 'hacking' even though most of those people have no idea what hacking actually is, but accusing Watch_Dogs of teaching children how to hack is positively laughable.

Censorship isn't just an issue of the past either. Just recently there was a huge controversy over the censorship spearheaded by an unlikely source: From Sony itself! (Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.) A spokesperson had made a statement indicating that the company was making moves to cut down on the stretch of sexual themes in their games, namely the Japanese Anime-focused ones. Personally, I have rather strong views on this particular branch of censorship but I'll likely write more on that at a later date. At the time it didn't worry a lot of people because, for the general public, their games-of-choice weren't in the crosshairs. That was, at least, until Devil May Cry 5.

Devil May Cry marked it's triumph return to it's series roots by reintroducing the classic versions of popular series characters: Dante and Lady. One scene did raise the hackles of Sony, however, when Lady was swallowed by a demon and had to be rescued by Dante. After she was freed there was a scene wherein she was expelled from the beast naked and defeated. Dante then picks her up and takes her to safety. It should be noted that this was done through a cut scene and the nudity was handled tastefully. Lady was obscured from view and nothing racy was shown. (Oh, wait. There was an inch of but crack in one shot? My bad, call the censors, we need to lock this down!) Sony made the move to add a light flare in one scene showing a glimpse Lady's behind, making a whole slew of gamers raise an eyebrow and say "Really?!"

It's less the act and more the audacity that Sony believed themselves fully within their rights to edit someone else's artwork in order for them to be comfortable with it. The change was small, but the precedent set is incredibly unsettling. Even Nintendo reflected similar remarks (Nintendo!) saying that it isn't their place to decide on the content of third party games. If you don't think it would fit with your policies than don't sell the thing, but acknowledge that you'll be missing out on a stream of revenue by doing so. When the question of censorship arrives, just like with South Park's manatees it is an all or nothing scenario.

The topic of content regulation and censorship stretches to a whole slew of areas that really require their own blog to dive into. I just wanted to establish a baseline to expand from and show you how things are playing out in today's world. In the coming years I think that this topic will become increasingly important as these outdated values start to seriously impact the earned media that the Internet has fostered in recent years. (Which I elaborated more on in my: 'Youtube vs gaming' blog.) From the looks of it, things are going to get worse before they get better as fear mongering starts to lead the direction of the industry. Maybe I'm being a tad hyperbolic but it can be enlightening to imagine the extremes in formative times like these, because we may just reach those extreme sooner than one might think.