Not their fault, huh?

If a Kong falls down from a game shelf and no one picks it up...

Seems I spoke too soon.

 

There's nary a less sure bet than labelling the worst or best of something to come out any given year, unless you're calling Baldur's Gate 3 the best of the year because come on: in this industry who really has the gumption to try and match it? And yet still I thought pretty set in my ways about the fact that Gollum earnt that spot through blood, sweat and pixels: toiling in the mines to create the worst gameplay loop, the least engaging narrative, the shoddiest visuals paired with the choppiest experience. Gollum took a concept that made people raise their eyebrows and proved even the grandest sceptic wrong with just how pointless of an idea the game was. As sad as I am about the fate of the development studio being shut down, as I believe more indie developers settling into niches is an overall boon for the industry as a whole, I also can't disguise the fact that Gollum was fundamentally atrocious at a core level. Surely there would be no-one to match up!

"No. There is another!"

Initially I called it deeply unfair to compare the messy and ugly presentation of the advertised 'Skull Island: Rise of Kong' game with Gollum for the sheer fact that they appear to be vastly different sizes of productions. Gollum was created with the aplomb and expectation of a AAA product, irregardless of the actual provided resources to live up to that expectation, whereas Skull Island looked bargain bin from the word go. But now that both games are out and we've seen them to their extent, I'm starting to really compare and contrast as strongly as I can and I don't think it's a 'recency bias' thing anymore- there might be a genuine claim on the title of 'worst of 2023' by 'Rise of Kong' which Gollum might not be able to win out on. At the very least, we can credit both these games for making Forspoken look like a sparkling masterpiece of this year by comparison. I would say we owe that game an apology... but no. I'm not apologising. 

First off I want to dispel the 'excuse' that either of these titles are 'movie tie-in games'. Back in the day we used to have games that were developed to tie-in with movie releases that, in hindsight, were destined to be poor due to the fact that game design takes a lot longer than your average movie production, so their inevitable deadlines were impossible for any development team to effectively work with. Movie tie-in games gained a reputation for mediocrity with an inbuilt sympathy for that fact- neither of which should apply for these two games. Gollum was not based on any movie, nor beholden to the release of any other piece of Lord of the Rings literature. Right from the outset the team were very clear how they based their inspiration purely on the book and how the game was independent of even the recent Amazon show, their failures are their own. And Kong? There isn't even a movie called 'Skull Island: Rise of Kong'! The connections are tenuous at best.

When it comes to the actual gameplay loop of Kong, I find myself at odds. Whereas Kong's dinosaur slapping is objectively awful to low-budget mobile game standards, it was at least envisioned to be somewhat entertaining. Gollum's fetch quest chains are a step more competent, but that just comes with the added knowledge that some developer with knowledge of what they were doing intentionally designed some of the well-known most boring content imaginable. What is worse, to fail thanks to general ineptitude or to fail when you really honestly should have known better all along? I suppose for effect it would be the former, but the latter stings harder. Potential wasted is a more potent poison in my mind I guess.

Graphically Kong takes the cake. Gollum might look ugly as sin, with horrendous 2D PNG cardboard cutout background models, but at least there's the semblance of assets and some vague idea of artistic planning there. Kong is a scam in that regard. (And most regards, for that matter.) It's environments are awash with hideous colour combinations that look like a low-cost Star Trek set in it's worst eras, the maps are completely unhinged jumbles of nothing- as though put together by toddlers- and just about every asset is considerably worse than what can be found for free on any half-decent Asset store. I would not be surprised if you told me the creators of this game were teenagers who had never touched design before, but I'm told this is actually the same team behind the recent 'Avatar' game so... wow, some people are just born thieves.

There is no story to speak off beyond the initial narration, and altogether it's shocking to see something so pathetic at an actual $38 price point. It would be shocking to see this game at any price point, they should honestly pay us for having to deal with all that trash! It's galling to think that the actual Kong movie tie-in, Peter Jackson's King Kong, blows this one out of the water in content, competency and visual fidelity. It's no masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, but it's like night and day compared to 'Skull Island'. And when did that game release? 2005. 18 Years ago. What kind of world do we live in when that is even a comparison that can be made? One where some psychotic executive out there is obsessed with keeping Gamemill afloat.

How is this a mostly negative game? Because misery loves an audience and the sheer spectacle of what Kong is will be enough to drag in the curious heads who'll pump enough pity purchases to recoup the $10 spent on development. This is why I'm all for those indie companies that get started up by ex big studio devs, because when you allow talentless nobodies to vomit their work out for the public to see it gives a bad name to independent companies the world over. Gamemill are an embarrassment, some call them the modern day LJN. And honestly... yeah, that's what they are. 'Ludicrously Juvenile Neanderthals', utterly and bewilderingly incapable of providing decent output to the licences they somehow keep acquiring. You know what? The conspiracy side of me is saying that these idiots are actually industry plants designed to make the paltry offerings of Ubisoft and it's ilk look somehow worth it. Nice try, but crap compared to crap is still crap, Mirage!

Down the rabbit hole!

I've found my next whipping horse

Every now and then I find myself browsing the marketplace of my local digital storefront just to gawk at the weird and downright awful titles that you never hear about. (Yeah, I have a lot of freetime.) Sometimes I even bring my brother along for the ride and we sit there flabbergasted by the most embarrassing cash grabs of all time; like the Top Gear racing game that was real and had 4 player co-op. (The extra person got to play as another Jeremy Clarkson. Yay!) This is how I make fun for myself.

Today boredom struck, so I decided to delve into the madness once again and was greeted with something I never thought that I would see again; A movie license game. Yep, for the upcoming 'Zombieland: Double tap' it seems that Sony Pictures wanted to resurrect that long-dead practice and see if they could make a quick buck out of it. Honestly I was never a huge fan of 'Zombieland'. Don't get me wrong, the movie was fine, but I just couldn't see myself sitting down to watch the thing more than once. I just felt like the whole time the film was trying too hard to be quirky and likeable to the point that I wanted to poke my eyes out with a fork. Maybe it's just another symptom of general-zombie-fatigue-syndrome but I feel the cells in my brain start to shut down everytime I look at a piece of promotional art for the new one. But doesn't mean that the tie in game can't be good, right?

Well, we're looking at a twin stick zombie shooter with local co-op. (A twin stick. In 2019. Okay.) The screenshots, what few I could find, seem to show us that the game has players taking the role of these ugly looking mannequin people that appear to represent the academy award winning cast. (You can tell because of the photoshop filtered JPEG's at the bottom. Also some weird lighting choice makes them look badly cropped, is anyone else seeing this?) The description is hardly that descriptive either, telling us merely that the game is "It's own unique story" and also how it is "Ridiculously fun." (Well, if the description said it, then it must be true!)

"Play as your favourite heroes from the original - Tallahassee, Columbus, Wichita and Little Rock-" (Those were their names? How quirky!) "as well as new unlockable characters from the upcoming sequel." (Could that be an omen hinting at Microtransactions? Magic eight ball says: I don't know, Probably.) "The game embraces the game-like elements seen in the film by  incorporating everything from the "Rules" to "Zombie kill of the week".  I'll admit, that sentence made me vomit in my mouth a little. (Oh, by the way, that double space before 'incorporating' is there in the official description. This game just oozes quality, huh?) "Use your special abilities... (blah blah) ...weapons... to stay alive against huge numbers of uniquely grotesque and dangerous undead monstrosities in Zombieland: Double Tap." Firstly, 'huge numbers'? Not too specific there. Also, look at these screenshots, what about these blocky sprites scream "Uniquely Grotesque"? What does that even mean? Also the game will have a "story-based mode, wave-based horde mode and boss battles." Not entirely sure why they thought 'boss battles' counted as its own mode, but at least they are excited to talk about the game.

Truth be told, I hardly thought that this game would be worth a mention on this blog. As I skimmed past all the screenshots and glanced over the description nothing seemed to hook me at all. I just ended up thinking, "Oh, this game looks like a free-to-play mobile title from the early 2010's" and brushing it aside. Curiosity bade me to take down the studio name on the storefront to see which poor sod Sony managed to rope into making this turd and see their history. I googled their name, GameMill Entertainment, and discovered that Giant Bomb had an entry on them reading:"GameMill Entertainment is a third party video game publisher. The company is best known for being the publisher of 'Big Rigs: Over The Road Racing.'" 

The room fell into a hush. (I was the only one in it, but still.) I'm sorry, they what? They are responsible for the legendarily terrible 'Big Rigs'? The game that was so bad of a racer that, in the original release of the game, your opponents didn't even have AI and wouldn't leave the starting line? A game so incompetent that, upon reaching the end, you are greeted with a message reading: (And I quote) 'You're winner'? Someone gave them money to create a movie tie-in to a multimillion dollar movie? Is this real life? Is this just fantasy? Well, no, not entirely, GameMill merely published Big Rigs just as they are merely publishing 'Zombieland: Double tap road trip', but it sets the tone for the quality of people that this publisher works with. 

Let's take a look at their other publishing roles. It seems that they also published an unnerving amount of games based around hunting like 'Big buck trophy hunt', 'Pheasants forever: Wingshooter', and' Deer Hunter Reloaded'. (Which they also developed.) They've also been picked up for this 'low-budget' tie-in game thing before; They published the DS games of 'Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2' (Did not know that movie got a sequel.) Frozen: Olaf's Quest (No comment) and Hotel Transylvania. (Because if any movie screamed for a video game tie in...) Also, they published a game called: Water Sports. I have nothing more to add to that, because the name says it all.

But we are besides the point right now, there is little honor in kicking the publishers in the shins when there is a developer who is likely more to blame for this impending train wreck. They appear to be one 'High Voltage Software'. The company responsible for developing some of GameMill's more... rural titles; such as 'Country Dance' 1 & 2 for the Wii and 'Victorious: Taking the lead'. (Wait... does that mean that there is a Wii video game with Ariana Grande's likeness in it? Oh my god, I found it below. My life is complete.) They also developed the ports of Injustice and Saints Row 4 and the HD re-release of 'Zone of Enders'. (All of which were trash.) High Voltage got a chance at a big break when NetherRealm, apparently not learning from the first time, entrusted them with porting their own baby to the home computer; Mortal Kombat X.  That went... incredibly poorly. Yeah, NetherRealm decided to go with a different company for Mortal Kombat 11.

So these are the guys that Sony Pictures think will bring justice to the Zombieland brand on consoles. (I can just imagine the look on Sony Entertainment's face when they find out their sister company went behind their back with some two-dollar hoe from the off-licence.) I'm usually a more measured 'wait and see' kind of guy, heck, I sit on the fence so much it's started to mold to my butt groves, but I don't think such trepidation is required when assessing this to-be-released title.  'Zombieland: Double tap Road trip' will be one of those beautiful disasters that get swept under the rug by most media and only ambulance chasers, like myself, will stick around to gawp at the gorey remains. At least that's something to look forward to this October.